July 18, 2018

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the representative of the Plaintiff, the Nonparty (date of birth 1 and address omitted).

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. Defendant 1:

(a) 9,067,922 Won and its equivalent shall be paid 6% per annum from September 1, 2016 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment;

B. As to KRW 17,037,147 and KRW 10,00,00 among them, 5% interest per annum from April 1, 2014 to the service date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and 7,037,147 interest per annum from May 4, 2016 to the service date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, 5% interest per annum and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. Defendant 2 shall pay to the Plaintiff 4,516,16 won with 6% interest per annum from July 1, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance is acknowledged as legitimate in the court of first instance even if the evidence of evidence No. 38, 39, 52 through 54, 56, 58, 69, A, and evidence No. 40, 43 through 51, 59 through 68, and evidence No. 1, 2, 41, and 42-1, evidence No. 57-1, evidence No. 70-1 through 4, evidence No. 70-1 through 7, evidence No. 57-2, evidence No. 57-1 through 7, evidence No. 57-1, evidence No. 79, 80-1, 2, and evidence No. 81-1 through 68-1, respectively.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court. As such, it is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff amended the Plaintiff’s operational rules on March 10, 2015, and the resolution of the general meeting provides that “the consent of the majority of resident members and the majority of resident members”. The Plaintiff’s general meeting on March 10, 2017 attended and passed a resolution by 27 members, who were 41 majority of the members actually residing at that time. Thus, the above resolution of the general meeting is legitimate, and the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff each amount stated in the purport of the claim.

According to the statement of evidence No. 36-1 and No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s 36-2, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) although Article 1(5) of the amended Rules of Operation of the Plaintiff’s 36-1 and No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s 36-2 amended as of March 10, 2015 provides that “The resolution of the meeting shall be approved by the majority of the members present at the present apartment complex; (b) the said amended Rules of Operation was submitted to November 8, 2017, which is after the closing of argument in the first instance trial, after the date of the first instance trial, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff submitted the Plaintiff’s 3-2 and the Rules of Operation (Evidence No. 14) of the Plaintiff’s 14-2 and the said amended Rules of Operation had gone through lawful amendment procedures.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, which is premised on the legitimacy and effectiveness of the above revised operational rules, cannot be accepted without any justifiable reason, as it is necessary to examine the remainder of the issues.

B. The Plaintiff held a general meeting of the Plaintiff on March 9, 2018 when 42 members residing in 00 ○○○ apartment owners among 63 members living in the middle of 63 members living in the middle of 63 members, and decided to confirm the non-party as the chairperson who is the representative of the Plaintiff. As such, the instant lawsuit brought by the non-party as the representative of the Plaintiff is lawful. Accordingly, the Defendants are obligated to pay each amount stated in the purport of the claim

According to each statement of evidence Nos. 38, 53, and 54, the non-party representative of the plaintiff is recognized as having made a public announcement that the plaintiff will hold the plaintiff's general meeting on March 9, 2018 and that < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20170, Mar. 9, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 20170, Feb. 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20170, Feb. 2017; Presidential Decree No. 20175, Feb. 2, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Apr. 2, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Feb. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2

However, as seen earlier, the above general meeting held on March 9, 2018 was held by the Nonparty, and there is no evidence to recognize that the Nonparty at that time is a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff. Thus, the above general meeting cannot be deemed to be convened by a legitimate convening authority, and therefore the resolution of ratification of appointment of each president at the above general meeting is invalid.

Therefore, without any justifiable reason, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion, which is premised on the legitimacy and validity of the resolution of ratification of the appointment of each president made at the general meeting of the shareholders on March 9, 2018, as it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all appeals against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Ho-ho et al. (Presiding Judge)