1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant on September 11, 2013, B apartment in Dong-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Dong-dong, 108.

Article 30(1) of the Management Rules (the minutes shall be recorded by the chairperson of the meeting), Article 27(2)(3) of the Resolution Rules, Article 28(4) of the Resolution Rules, Article 29(1) of the Resolution Rules, Article 33(2) of the Resolution Rules, and Article 33(2) of the Resolution Rules, are subject to corrective orders of the Dong-gu Office for invalid agenda items.

4. Before the establishment of the third council of occupants' representatives, the head of the management office in charge of monthly rights and interference with business: (i) the delinquent management expenses of KRW 40,00,00; (ii) the penalty surcharges of KRW 12,917,820; (iii) the excessive disbursement of prepaid expenses; (iv) the imposition and collection of KRW 6,340,40; (iv) the excessive disbursement of prepaid expenses; and (v) the unpaid payment of KRW 2,850,00 in 20,000 due to the failure to comply with the elevator usage fee management rules; and (v) the poor provision of explanatory materials as to the difference of miscellaneous income refusing to submit the answer; and (iv) reference to Article 20 (Dismissal of Representatives, etc. by Building) of the instant regulations; and (v) the grounds for dismissal of the representatives and executive officers of each building under Article 50(4)9 of the Decree

(hereinafter referred to as each subparagraph omitted) The grounds for dismissal submitted by the council of occupants' representatives do not fall under Article 20 of the Rules of this case. Therefore, even if procedural procedures are complied with, it is invalid.

(3) On September 4, 2013, the chairman of the election management commission held a meeting to verify the grounds for dismissal and supporting materials submitted on the following day, and had the Plaintiff attend the meeting. Of the supporting materials submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not attend the meeting, the following: (1) to (5) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to attend the meeting is different from the facts; and (8) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s decision to delete the portions on the grounds that they had an influence on voting in the period of determination by the occupant (the portion of the No. 10