1. A resolution to appoint C as the president of the management body at an extraordinary general meeting held by the Defendant on September 1, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”), the Defendant is an organization consisting of sectional owners of B shopping districts located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant shopping districts”).

A sectional owner of the commercial building of this case is currently 103 persons, and the plaintiff is a sectional owner of the fourth floor of this case 408.

B. On March 1, 2016, around 17:00, the Defendant was convened by E who was appointed as a temporary manager by the application for the appointment of a temporary manager from 2015 non-conforming 1003 of this Court at an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant general meeting”).

On the other hand, the general meeting was held in the state that some agenda was excluded by the provisional disposition of prohibition of the general meeting of 2016Kahap20033. The meeting minutes of the 63 sectional owners among 103 sectional owners include 2 occupants.

With the consent of the management body C, a resolution was made to appoint C as the president of the management body (the name provided for in the Aggregate Buildings Act is the manager; hereinafter referred to as the "manager").

C. Meanwhile, Article 16(2)4 of the Management Rules provides that “The occupant who does not reside in a party building for at least six months shall not be the representative of the management body.”

C acquired ownership of 131 on October 29, 2015, the first floor underground of the instant commercial building.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 21, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 5 to 15 (if there are provisional numbers, including the provisional parcel number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the resolution of the general assembly of this case to appoint C as a custodian is invalid due to defects below the quorum in the procedural aspect (part of delegation was invalid or overlapped) and defects in appointing a person who is not an administrator in the substantive aspect.

Modern, C.