1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a management body established pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”) for the management of B, a “sale, business, and neighborhood living facilities,” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Plaintiff is a sectional owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer for some stores (No. 49 through 52) of the first floor of the instant building around November 13, 2014.

B. The 30 sectional owners of the instant building claimed a temporary convocation of the management body as Seoul Central District Court 2014 non-fhap106. On July 30, 2014, the said court permitted the Defendant’s temporary convocation of the management body meeting for the purpose of meeting “establishment of management rules, appointment of the manager, appointment of the management body, and change in the management body structure and management method” (hereinafter “the instant decision”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The management rules of July 1, 200 (A evidence 28; hereinafter “the management rules of July 1, 2000”) are same as the first management rules of September 30, 199, which are determined as effective in the lawsuit for the management claim filed by the Defendant’s sectional owners for dismissal. (b) However, under the proviso of Article 24(3) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, where the regulations stipulate that the management committee shall appoint a manager by its resolution, a manager may be appointed by a resolution. (c) The provisional assembly of the management committee of October 30, 2014, which was held in accordance with the instant decision, was postponed by the Defendant’s interference, and where the temporary manager in the management rules of 200 did not have any provision concerning the case of obstructing the meeting of the management committee, the above management rules were enacted pursuant to Article 58 of the Act that provides for the application mutatis mutandis of other Acts, and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Aggregate Buildings Act.