beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. B at the provisional management body meeting held on April 9, 2016 by the Defendant as the Defendant’s manager.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of the aggregate building of the second underground floor in Jung-gu, Seoul and the 8th floor above (ASang; hereinafter “instant building”) and the Defendant is a management body established for the purpose of the management of the said building and its site and its ancillary facilities, consisting of all 296 sectional owners of the instant building pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Building Act”).
B. On November 26, 2010, the Defendant held a management body meeting and appointed E as a manager. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap74290 that E shall not perform its duties as a custodian. On July 10, 2014, the Defendant was issued a provisional disposition suspending the execution of duties, with the purport that E shall not perform its duties as a custodian until the said judgment becomes final and conclusive.
C. On November 25, 2015, F, et al., the sectional owners of the instant building, were decided to permit the convening of an extraordinary management body meeting against the Defendant pursuant to Article 33(2) and (3) of the Multi-Family Building Act, which aims to appoint a manager as Seoul Central District Court 2015 non-conforming75.
Accordingly, on April 9, 2016, the Defendant held a temporary management body meeting for the purpose of appointing a manager on the seventh floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant management body meeting”).
The 163 sectional owners who have submitted the proxy voting rights to the management body meeting of this case are 163 persons. Among them, 17 persons of FU, FV, FW, H, FX, FY, FY, CB, FZ, CV, G, G, E, GB, G, GB, GC, GD, GD, and GE submitted a proxy to the management body meeting of this case, which they directly attended the meeting of this case.
In addition, 11 members of GF, AB, FB, FK, FP, GG, CY, GH, EO, and EW were directly present at the meeting of the above management body without submitting the power of attorney.
Accordingly, 174 of the sectional owners 296 = 174 of the power of attorney was submitted, but the principal was present.