구조물철거 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons why this Court has used this part of the underlying facts are as follows, except where the third and third court ruling “201.1” is “2014.” This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The reasoning for the court to use this part of the judgment on the primary claim is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant's exclusive possession and use of the signboard of this case constitutes an act against the common interests of the sectional owners prohibited by Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act"), and it constitutes an act against the common interests of the sectional owners, and thus, it is necessary to give consent by the resolution of the assembly of sectional owners, even though
Accordingly, the plaintiffs, as a preservation act under the proviso of Article 16 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, seek an indirect compulsory payment calculated by the ratio of KRW 5 million per day when they violate the removal of the signboard of this case and the delivery of the signboard of this case and their obligations.
The defendant's legal representative, after the closing of argument in the first instance trial, was submitted on September 16, 2015, not only the plaintiff was the manager or the sectional owner designated by resolution at the management body's meeting, but also the plaintiff did not go through the resolution at the management body's meeting. Thus, the plaintiffs' preliminary claim was ① the sectional owner's claim for suspension of an act contrary to the common interests under Article 43 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (Article 43 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of the same Article), or in the case where the sectional owner conducts an act under Article 5 Paragraph 1 or is likely to conduct