The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) On November 2, 2015, as to whether the president’s authority and duties were lost, a resolution for dismissal of D was passed at the representatives of occupants (special meetings) on November 2, 2015, and D lost the position of the representative of occupants pursuant to Article 20(7) of the Rules on Management of Multi-Family Housing amended on August 21, 2015 and Article 20(4)-3 of the Rules on Management of Multi-Family Housing as amended on October 14, 2015.

Therefore, the contents of the defendant's personal information about the loss of representative positions of D are true.

2) As to whether the Defendant refused to provide the data related to the resolution of dismissal, the Defendant submitted all the data related to the resolution of dismissal to the managing body based on the apartment management rules of the instant apartment management agreement, and it was known that the management body kept the minutes of the resolution of dismissal when requested to deliver the data from D.

Therefore, it is true that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant refuses to present evidentiary documents on dismissal is false even if the Defendant demands to present evidentiary documents on dismissal.

3) A defect suit related to the instant apartment is pending in the process of a defect suit related to the existence of contributions to the defect suit, which includes not only D but also members of the tenant representative suit.

In addition, since Korea has received the cost of performing the duties of KRW 500,000 per month in relation to the proceeding of the above lawsuit, D's performance of the duties related to the lawsuit is nothing more than the one of his/her obligations. Therefore, it is true that "D's defect lawsuit, which has not been decided, is also false as his/her own public opinion."

4) On November 16, 2015, a resolution was passed to dismiss the representative meeting of apartment occupants of the instant apartment as to whether the dispute was under mediation by the Dispute Mediation Committee, as of November 16, 2015.

Therefore, the adjustment applied by D pursuant to the proviso of Article 17 of the Housing Ordinance in South Yangyang-si.