2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a management body established pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”) for the management of sales, business, and neighborhood living facilities in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Plaintiff is a sectional owner who owns some of the subdivisions in the first floor of the instant building.

B. 23 sectional owners of the instant building, including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a claim for a temporary convocation of the management body with the Seoul Central District Court 2014 non-conforming106.

On July 30, 2014, the above court permitted the Defendant to convene an extraordinary meeting of the management body for the purpose of meeting “the establishment of management rules, the appointment of the administrator, the organization of the management committee, and the change in the management method.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On August 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted, etc. held a preparatory committee for the management body meeting and elected six election management members according to the instant decision.

On August 29, 2014, six election management members elected as above and three existing representative members (management members) were held at a joint meeting and three representatives (management members) were additionally elected.

Plaintiff

On October 30, 2014, the first management body meeting was convened on October 30, 2014.

However, the sectional owners who attended the above management body meeting did not reach the resolution on each agenda because they did not reach the quorum.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, etc. convened the second management body meeting (hereinafter “instant management body meeting”) on November 28, 2014, pursuant to Article 41(5) of the Standard Management Rules of Multi-Family Housing Act.

The management body meeting of this case attended by 55 of the 109 sectional owners of the building of this case, and the majority of sectional owners did not meet the requirements for voting rights.

For this reason.