1. Of the instant principal lawsuit, the part of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s claim to nullify the invalidity of the general meeting of the Steering Committee on January 26, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a co-owner of the "Btel", which is an aggregate building in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter "the building in this case"), and the defendant is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the building in this case pursuant to Article 23 (1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter "the Condominium Act").

The defendant's temporary management body assembly and the general meeting of the operating committee held on May 6, 2015 and the general meeting of the operating committee on May 8, 2015 for the appointment of executive officers of the operating committee, and the minutes of the meeting of the operating committee on January 26, 2016 are prepared.

On May 6, 2015, the minutes of the meeting held on May 2015, stating that C, etc. was appointed as executive officers of the autonomous management body in 2015 of the instant building; and on the general meeting held on May 8, 2015 and the minutes of the meeting held on January 26, 2016, the executive officers appointed at the meeting held extraordinary meetings of the Steering Committee on May 6, 2015 and elected C as the chairperson of the Steering Committee. The Plaintiff, a sectional owner of the instant building, filed an application for provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties against C by the time the instant judgment became final and conclusive.

The court of first instance dismissed the application in the above provisional disposition, but the appellate court accepted the application to the effect that C shall not perform its duties as the chairperson of the defendant operating committee until the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on the grounds that the resolution of May 6, 2015 was invalid in light of the defendant's 2005 rules. The above decision became final and conclusive.

Of the provisions of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the provisions of the defendant's regulations, the Aggregate Buildings Act and the management rules of the defendant are as follows:

Since both the plaintiff and the defendant claim that the rules enacted in 2003 are valid, they are based on them.