2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant.

A. On September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff newly constructed five-story condominiums (23 of the total number of stores; hereinafter the above divided stores are collectively referred to as the instant commercial buildings, and each of the stores is specified as the number of houses), which are an aggregate building located in D in D in Sung-si, and sells each of the above stores after completing registration of ownership preservation on September 21, 2015, and currently owned 202.

B. The Defendant is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the instant commercial building.

C. Of the sectional owners of the instant commercial building, E, F, G, H, and I convened a meeting of the managing body on October 27, 2016 and held the first meeting of the managing body (hereinafter referred to as the “first managing body”). At the said meeting, a resolution was adopted to set the management rules “a resolution to appoint the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor) as the manager of the Defendant” as shown in paragraph (1) of the attached Table and “a resolution to set the management rules as described in paragraph (2) of the same Table.”

(hereinafter referred to as the above resolution of this case in total) d.

Since then, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the validity of the instant resolution, the Defendant again held a meeting of the managing body on November 22, 2016 (hereinafter “the second managing body”) and adopted a resolution to ratification the instant resolution.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Resolution”). E.

Since both the resolution of this case and the ratification resolution of this case are defective resolutions made at the management body meeting held without notice of legitimate convocation of assembly, the intervenor appointed pursuant to each of the above resolutions applied for provisional disposition of suspension of execution of its duties on the ground that he/she is not a legitimate administrator of the commercial building of this case and received a written decision of acceptance on January 17, 2017, stating that "the plaintiff shall not perform his/her duties as a manager until the judgment of nullification or revocation of the above resolution becomes final and conclusive

(Usu District Court 2016Kahap10320). Reference to the owner of the section for exclusive use of a sectioned store (Mam20), No. 101, 38.59 L. 102, 43.29 M 103 M 103.29, No. 404, 105, 43.29 O limited company 105, 43.29 P. 43.29.