All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. In fact, the plaintiff is a management body composed of owners of Amera and its representative is D at the time of strike.

Defendant B is a lessee of the first floor E, who operates a mutually cafeteria called “F” at that place, and Defendant C is the owner of the said subparagraph.

The Defendants did not pay management expenses of KRW 1,917,950 as of December 5, 2019, and KRW 2,553,360 as of March 5, 2020.

Some shop owners, including G, voluntarily form an organization, separate from the Plaintiff, which is a legitimate management body, D, arguing that it is not qualified as the representative of the Plaintiff. G asserted that it is a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff, and filed an application for provisional disposition of suspending the performance of duties against D.

The court rejected D’s motion on the ground that D is a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff (C. 2019Kahap5356, Oct. 17, 2019), and the appeal against D’s motion was dismissed.

(A) On March 4, 2020, Seoul High Court Order 2019Ra21159 dated March 13, 2020). G and some of the shop owners, including the Defendant, asserted that D are not legitimate representatives of the Plaintiff, and filed an application with D for the suspension of the performance of duties of the representative and the appointment of acting representatives.

The court dismissed the motion on the ground that D is a legitimate representative of the plaintiff.

(A) Article 15(7) of the Plaintiff’s Management Rules provides that “The grounds for the removal of an executive officer are as follows” on February 18, 20208, 2019Kahap5698 dated February 7, 2020. The grounds for the dismissal of an executive officer are as follows:

(1) The Defendants asserted that D was not duly elected as the Plaintiff’s legitimate representative, and that D was legally dismissed at the meeting of January 11, 2020 and the meeting of August 16, 2020.

However, it was confirmed that D had been elected as a legitimate representative of the plaintiff in the above litigation procedure.

② The documents related to meetings submitted by the Defendants alone are as D at the meeting.