2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The portion resulting from the participation in the total cost of the lawsuit.

A. The plaintiff is the occupant of the apartment B apartment at the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and the defendant is the council of occupants' representatives comprised of the representatives of the above apartment buildings by Dong.

B. The term of office of the 14th council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case was from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 201. The representative of the 205 Dong Dong Dong Dong, who resides in the defendant joining the defendant, resigned during the above term of office. On August 23, 2010, the defendant joining the defendant elected the representative of the apartment of this case at the above 205 Dong Dong Dong at the above temporary landscape, the defendant joining the defendant was determined in the case of provisional disposition for invalidation of election against the defendant joining the defendant (Seoul District Court 2013Kahap520, Changwon District Court 201), and the case of appeal against the provisional disposition of the above provisional disposition (Seoul District Court 2014Kahap87, Changwon High Court 2014Ra51) and the reasons for each of the above decisions are stated in detail.

In addition, in the written opinion submitted by the Defendant’s Intervenor against the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment on December 8, 2011, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant himself was elected from August 23, 2010 to the occupant of B apartments as the representative of the instant apartment by Dong 205, according to justifiable procedures.

(See Evidence A No. 3). On the other hand, the defendant joining the defendant asserts that the representative from June 22, 2010 to June 22, 2010 is present from that time since he acted as the representative of the above Dong Dong Dong, but even if he actually worked as the representative for the above period, unless he goes through the election procedures prescribed in the Housing Act or the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, it cannot be deemed that he was elected as the representative by each Dong

The apartment of this case was elected as the representative for each 205 Dong.

C. Thereafter, the Intervenor joining the Defendant on January 1, 2012