In this case.

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case brought by B without the power of representation is unlawful, since the elected by B as the representative by Dong No. 11 and the representative by the plaintiff by Dong No. 11 violates the enforcement Decree of this case.

As to this, Article 19(1) of the existing management rules, which existed prior to the enforcement of the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case, limited the number of times of the representative of each Dong to one time, but the provision of the above restriction on the appointment of a representative does not apply to the case of a candidate independently under the proviso of the same paragraph. Since he was elected as a representative of each Dong, he was not elected as a representative of the 6 and 7th Dong Dong, to which the above management rules apply, since he was not the representative of the 11th Dong Dong prior to the enforcement decree of this case, he did not act as a representative of the 11th Dong Dong and the representative of the plaintiff, and even if so, he asserts that he still is the

3. As to the relevant statutes and the management rules of the apartment of this case, the relevant part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance shall be quoted pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The validity of the election of the representative of the 11st building and the Plaintiff’s representative is 1) the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12115, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter the same applies) of the relevant legal doctrine

Article 43(7)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22254, Jul. 6, 2010) provides that matters necessary for the organization, operation, and resolution of the council of occupants' representatives of multi-family housing shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.