1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The defendant's main defense and judgment

A. C, the Plaintiff’s representative in the complaint, is not the manager duly elected at the managing body’s meeting, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it constitutes a lawsuit filed by a person without the power of representation.

B. Article 60 of the Civil Procedure Act applicable mutatis mutandis to the representative or manager of a juristic person or an association which is not a juristic person pursuant to Article 64 of the same Act, where there exist any defects in the granting of a litigation capacity, authority of legal representation, or authority required for procedural acts, the court shall order to correct them with fixing a period, and where a person defective in the granting of a litigation capacity, authority of legal representation, or authority required for procedural acts has conducted procedural acts, and where such procedural acts have been ratified by the corrected party or legal representative, such procedural acts shall take effect retroactively from the time when they were conducted. Thus, the Plaintiff management

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement of evidence Nos. 9 through 10, the Plaintiff’s temporary general meeting held on May 17, 2016 appointed D as the Plaintiff’s representative, and the Plaintiff submitted to this court an application for correction of the Plaintiff’s indication, which corrected D’s representative on July 12, 2016, and this court may recognize the fact that it granted the permission.

According to the above facts, even if C did not have the authority to file a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the defects of the power of representation were corrected by revising the indication as D legally appointed at the meeting of the management body.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant left the temporary occupant representative of the instant building from June 2013 to June 16, 2014, and during the said period.