1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On December 28, 2017, the Defendant’s management body meeting held on December 28, 201 appoints I as a manager.

1. The reasons why this Court shall state this part of the underlying facts are the same as the part on “1. Basic Facts” among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by including the summary thereof in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The resolution of this case contains any defect in violation of laws or regulations, since the procedures for convening the general meeting of this case where the above resolution was made or the method of resolution was made, the resolution of this case should be revoked in accordance with Article 42-2 of the Aggregate Buildings Act.

In the process of convening the general assembly of this case, the notice of convening a notice and written resolution for the possessor was omitted, and the possessor demanded the possessor to submit a letter of delegation and a certificate of personal seal, thereby infringing the possessor's voting right under Article 24 (4) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and restricting the possessor's attendance at the general assembly, thereby infringing the possessor's right to state opinion under Article 40 (1) of the same

B. Since the resolution for the enactment of the instant management rules, carried out by means of a written resolution, is null and void for the following reasons, there is a serious procedural defect in the resolution in accordance with the invalid management rules.

1) The issue was whether the N (M)’s written resolution was valid at the time of the initial compilation following the resolution of the instant management rules, and the said written resolution was already included in 95 persons consenting to the enactment of the management rules (the content of the inquiry inquiry inquiry inquiry of N’s written resolution was entirely supervised by four preliminary members, and the said provisional administrator was not directly involved in the said compilation process.

Therefore, the resolution of the enactment of the instant management rules was not satisfied.

According to the plaintiffs' assertion, 119 sectional owners are important.