1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is the sectional owner of non-Dong 520, non-dong Etel located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and D (hereinafter "the instant officetel"), and the defendant is the manager of the instant officetel management body (hereinafter "the instant management body").

As follows, the Defendant inflicted damages on the management body by illegally using the parking lot repair and maintenance reserve funds of the management body of this case. As such, the Defendant should compensate for the damages to the management body of this case upon the Plaintiff’s request by one of the members of the management body of this case.

(In light of the purport of the purport of the claim, 334,935,856 won is the damage of the above management body). 1st officetel management body of this case used 334,935,856 won as the parking lot repair reserve in 2014 when the settlement of accounts in 2014, although there was no fact that the management body of the instant officetel of this case was performing the maintenance and repair of the parking lot in 2014.

‘A false report' was made.

2) The instant officetel management body does not have management rules. Thus, all management body affairs other than ordinary management affairs under Article 31 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (a abbreviation: Shall be performed according to the resolution of the management body meeting.

Nevertheless, the defendant used the parking lot repair reserve without the above resolution.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The lawsuit of this case against the defendant's assertion is unlawful for the following reasons and must be dismissed.

1) The Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit solely without the resolution of the management body meeting on the ground of the proviso of Article 16(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act. However, the same type of lawsuit as the type of the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed as the act of preserving the common property. However, even in such a case, the resolution of the management body meeting corresponding to the general meeting of members should be adopted (see Article 276(1) of the Civil Act). However, when the Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit, the meeting of the management body of this case should be held.