1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

o Part 5, Part 14, "not reliance on the belief," is amended to mean "no resolution on the amendment of the articles of incorporation is possible even if it is based on the minutes (No. 37 evidence) of the general meeting (No. 37) submitted in the trial, but the meeting of the board of directors has passed a written consent to discuss the amendment and make a resolution with a written consent."

o The "Defendant Commercial Building Management Body" and "Defendant B: the judgment of confession (Article 208 (3) 2, the main text of Article 150 (3) and the main text of Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)" are deleted.

o Part 11, Section 20 of the part, “No resolution has been passed,” and the part below, “Defendant Commercial Building Management Body’s board of directors, as of March 11, 2010, shall also hold a general meeting of shareholders on each floor within the limit of April 10, 2010, to collect a written resolution for the amendment of its articles of incorporation (No evidence No. 30-1), but the resolution was passed to collect a written resolution for the resolution (no evidence No. 30-1), but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the written consent has been obtained thereafter).”

o Nos. 12, 15 and below, “(8) The representative of the Defendant Commercial Building Management Body shall add “(A)” to the report on the progress of the ordinary general meeting (Evidence B No. 35) on January 18, 2014, the amendment of the articles of incorporation at the ordinary general meeting of shareholders on March 7, 2010, that the resolution was not made because it failed to meet the quorum.”

o The phrase “as a bond” and “three-year extinctive prescription” are added to “three-year extinctive prescription” (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65821, Feb. 22, 2007).

o No. 14, No. 7, "The above argument is without merit," and "The defendant's management body made a peremptory notice to the plaintiffs as of September 7, 2012 on the payment of management expenses, and thus, the extinctive prescription for the management expenses in this case was suspended, and Eul's evidence No. 38-1, No. 36.