1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff A is the representative of the second apartment district for each Dong in Gwangjin-si (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and is the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff B is the representative of the five apartment of this case and is the auditor.

The Defendant is an institution organized by occupants, etc. of the instant apartment pursuant to Article 50-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27444, Aug. 11, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act”) to elect or dismiss the officers of the council of occupants’ representatives comprised of representatives of each building or representatives of each building of the instant apartment.

B. On July 20, 2016, the Defendant announced that “Plaintiffs required residents to hold a special meeting on several occasions relating to the renewal of the contract with the Director of the Management Office, but neglected this request, and otherwise, they violated Article 57(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Housing Act and Article 20(1) of the Management Rules of the Apartment of the instant apartment for the reason that they violated Article 57(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act and Article 20(1) of the Management Rules.

C. As a result of the ballot counting of the residents’ voting conducted from July 21, 2016 to July 24, 2016, 44 of the 80 household members with respect to the Plaintiff was added up by 38, 5, and 1 of the 80 household members with respect to the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff B cast 46 of the 80 household members with respect to 42 and 4 of the 80 household members with respect to the 80 household members, respectively.

On July 25, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced that the Plaintiffs were dismissed as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 5 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. There is a procedural defect that the above residents' voting did not confirm whether the quorum for dismissal was met, and violated the procedures and methods stipulated in the apartment management rules of this case, such as not granting an opportunity to vindicate, and not notifying the reason for dismissal, and the president.