1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3:

Etel management body is a management body under Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings Act"), which consists of all sectional owners of Etel located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The plaintiff is a sectional owner of the above officetel.

B. On May 31, 2014, the Defendant was appointed as a manager at the assembly of the management body (hereinafter “instant management body assembly”) held on May 31, 2014.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The plaintiff asserts that the decision to appoint the defendant as the manager at the meeting of the management body of this case is invalid because the defendant was elected as the manager of the Etel management body by referring to the resolution to appoint the defendant as the manager.

Since the manager of the management body of an aggregate building is appointed or dismissed by the resolution of the management body meeting (Article 24(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act), the plaintiff's claim is ultimately seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution that the Etel management body appoints the defendant from the meeting of the management body of this case as the manager.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant, not the management body, is unlawful, as there is no benefit of confirmation, and thus, the defense prior to the merits is unlawful.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff conducts an illegal election by using methods such as manipulating most of the invalid election management regulations and written resolution, and announced to the manager of the Etel management body as such, the Plaintiff is acting as the manager, and the status of the Defendant is only disputed. Since it is not related to the legal act of the management body, it is recognized that the Defendant is qualified as the party, and the Etel management body of Etel is entitled to hold a meeting of the management body and make the same resolution. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to bring a