2. An agenda set forth in paragraph 4 of the attached Table of the management body meeting held by the Defendant on April 4, 2017.

A. 1) The defendant is the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings Act").

) Pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building C, which is an aggregate building of 7 underground floors and 23 floors above ground located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant building”).

2) The Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) was a company that newly built and sold the instant building on or around June 2004, and is a sectional owner who owns the entire four commercial floors and 14 households of officetels (18.7% in total compared to the total underground space) among the instant buildings.

3) Plaintiff B was appointed as the Defendant’s manager on October 23, 2010, and was dismissed from the office of the manager on December 9, 2014, and Nonparty B was appointed as the Defendant’s manager on December 9, 2014, and Nonparty B was appointed as the Defendant’s manager on December 9, 2014, and thereafter the Defendant’s regular meeting of the management body (hereinafter “instant management body meeting”).

B) The person appointed as the manager at the meeting of the management body of this case. The Defendant held the meeting of this case on March 24, 2017 under the name of the manager E and held the meeting of this case on April 4, 2017. The meeting of the management body of this case held on April 3, 2017. The meeting minutes of the management body of this case include 319 of the total sectional owners of the building of this case (171 of the sectional owners) and 15,416.58 square meters of total voting rights (15,416.58 square meters of total voting rights (8,806.37 square meters of 6,610.21 square meters) and attended and attended each of the items listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “items 1 through 5”), but when they are collectively named, the issue at this case’s agenda.

(2) The resolution of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “resolution of this case”)

Of the issues of this case, each agenda set forth in paragraphs 1, 4, 5-A, and 5-B were resolved with the consent of the majority of sectional owners and the majority of voting rights as follows, and the agenda set forth in Paragraph 2 was rejected due to the shortage of the quorum and the quorum, and accordingly, Paragraph 3 of the attached Table.