1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant J managing body (hereinafter “Defendant J managing Body”) is a managing body established under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”), consisting of all sectional owners of Seocho-gu Seoul Jtel (hereinafter “the instant building”). The Plaintiffs and Defendant I are sectional owners of the instant building.

B. From January 13, 2017, Defendant I was appointed as the president of the Representative Council of Defendant A’s Management Body and performed his duties as the manager of the instant building under the Aggregate Buildings Act.

According to Article 53 (1) and (3) of the management rules of the defendant management body, the term of office of the president of the management body shall be two years.

C. Plaintiffs B and C were auditors of the Defendant management body’s representative meeting, and the representative meeting of the Defendant management body resolved to dismiss Plaintiff B and C from the audit on December 27, 2017.

The plaintiff B, C, etc. raised an objection that the above resolution has no effect due to procedural and substantive defects, and the defendant I raised an objection that the defendant I violated the management rules of the defendant management body concerning the quorum of the representative council of the defendant management body.

E. The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit claiming the dismissal of a custodian on the ground that Defendant I violated the management rules of the management body, and that there was a cause for filing a claim for dismissal of a custodian under Article 24(5) of the Aggregate Buildings Act by committing an unlawful act.

F. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 28, 2018, K, a sectional owner of the instant building, was elected at the election of the president of the Defendant management body, and began on January 13, 2019 (up to January 12, 2021).

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs were claiming for the dismissal of the administrator against the Defendants pursuant to Article 24(5) of the Aggregate Buildings Act. However, as seen earlier, Defendant management body’s dismissal.