[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should convene a management body meeting with the same matters as stated in the attached list pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. However, Article 33(1) of the above Act is a provision concerning the authority of the management body so that the manager of an aggregate building may convene a management body meeting if it is necessary to hold a management body meeting. Since an individual owner of an aggregate building cannot demand the holding of a management body meeting based on the above provision, the plaintiff's assertion that the management body meeting should be held by requesting the National Election Commission to conduct the above management body meeting on such premise as alleged by the plaintiff and the defendant's argument that the defendant is obligated to pay 300,000 won per day

(2) Article 33(2) and (3) of the Act provides that a sectional owner of an aggregate building may claim the holding of a managing body’s meeting to the manager; however, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is not based on Article 33(2) and (3). Moreover, the procedure under the above provision is not based on the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, and can not be claimed as a lawsuit claiming the performance against the managing body by means of a general civil procedure. In this case, the above provision does not meet the requirement that at least one fifth of the sectional owners under Article 33(2) should request the convocation of a managing body’s meeting, and therefore, there is no room to determine the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s claim in accordance