The appeal by the plaintiff (appointed party) is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

purport, purport, and.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement or addition of the judgment as stated in the following two paragraphs, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

Article 81(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “The Promotion Committee, the Association or the management entity specialized in the improvement project shall make stenographic records, audio-recordings or video materials when a general meeting or an important meeting is held, and keep them until the time of liquidation.” Article 86 subparag. 7 of the same Act provides that any executive officer or employee of the Promotion Committee, the Association, or the management entity specialized in the improvement project shall be punished by imprisonment with labor

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s statement that the content of the board of directors was recorded on September 9, 2008, there is no content of recording on the recording tape, and that there was a signature of the board of directors, but F without being qualified as a director was signed by the board of directors, and that the board of directors stated “written resolution” in the meeting column, it is reasonable to view that the board of directors of September 9, 2008 was not opened or invalid.

Therefore, the resolution of the association general meeting of this case held without the resolution of board of directors is null and void.

No resolution by the board of directors was made on the ground that there was no sound records on the board of directors.

As recognized by the first instance court cited by this court, the "five written resolution" of the meeting minutes of the board of directors is a clerical error and actually made a resolution by the board of directors as stated in the remaining parts of the meeting minutes except for those parts.