1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added to the pertinent part the following determination as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s main defense is determined as follows: (a) in a case where the F Residents’ Council is deemed to be a partnership under the Civil Act, the Plaintiffs shall file a lawsuit in the form of an essential co-litigation against all union members; (b) the instant lawsuit brought against the Defendant only one of the union members is unlawful; (c) in a case where the obligee of the judgment-making union does not hold a joint liability for union property against each union member, but exercises the pertinent claim based on the personal responsibility of each union member, the obligee may file a lawsuit against each union member for performance thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da30705, Nov. 22, 191); and (d) the obligee of the union does not make a claim against each union member to the extent that it has not been repaid from the union property first,

Therefore, even if the F Residents' Council is a partnership under the Civil Act, the lawsuit of this case brought by the Plaintiff only against the Defendant based on the Defendant's personal responsibility cannot be deemed unlawful.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the merits, Article 43 and Article 45 of the Housing Act, which is a provision on the housing management method of the Housing Act, may be applied mutatis mutandis to the instant housing complex under Chapter 1, Chapter I of the Defendant’s assertion, may establish the management rules that have binding force on all occupants by a resolution of a majority of the owners of electric power units, and thus, the measures for cutting electricity and the management of sewage under the instant management rules (hereinafter “instant measures”) are not unlawful.

B. The second proposal Plaintiffs.