1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the lawsuit of this case, damages incurred by the disbursement of litigation costs of this case are 4,000.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the sectional owner of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Etel non-Dong 520, and the Defendant was appointed as the manager at the meeting of the Etel management body (hereinafter “instant management body”) held on May 31, 2014.

B. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the instant management body seeking confirmation of invalidity of the Election Management Regulations (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap534730) on the ground that the said regulations were not enacted through lawful procedures, and the said court rendered a judgment on October 16, 2014, stating that “the said lawsuit was deemed to have been withdrawn as of July 1, 2014.”

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an appeal, and the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on June 16, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lawsuit” by adding the entire litigation in the first instance and the second instance.

On July 28, 2016 after the completion of the instant lawsuit, the instant management body appointed a legal representative to conduct the lawsuit by appointing him/her as a legal representative in the instant lawsuit. Around July 28, 2016, the instant management body filed an application with the Plaintiff for confirmation of litigation costs (Seoul Central District Court 2016Da52731), and the said court rendered a decision on September 6, 2016 that the Plaintiff determined the litigation costs that the management body shall reimburse to the management body of this case as KRW 3,005,656.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, who was reappointed to the manager for a two-year term from June 16, 2012, was no longer entitled to appoint the Defendant as the manager of the instant management body pursuant to Article 50(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27444, Aug. 11, 2016; hereinafter the same). However, the instant management body meeting held on July 9, 2016, which again appointed the Defendant as the manager, is invalid in violation of the foregoing statutes. As such, the Defendant’s representation of the instant management body.