1. In accordance with the purport of the claim that was changed in exchange at the trial, the Defendant’s executive meeting on October 23, 2014 shall be held by the Integrated Control Board.

1. The reasons why this court should explain here are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, including relevant provisions, except for the addition of the following matters. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts] A. A. A. A. A. 53 was added to the second 15th 15th 3th . The Defendant added the following matters to the fourth 3th 3th . On October 23, 2014, the Defendant held a meeting of executives of the Integrated Management Group (hereinafter “the meeting of executives of the management body on October 23, 2014”) in the presence of J, Q, R, andO (hereinafter “the meeting of executives of the management body”) at the meeting of J, Q, R, andO (hereinafter “the meeting of executives of the management body”) and elected as representatives pursuant to the third resolution of this case constitutes grounds for disqualification for executives under the Enforcement Decree of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and the said E and D were not the sectional owners of the building of this case, and thus dismissed and treated as executive officers in accordance with the management rules, and the resolution of re-election of vacant executives after consultation with the side of the commercial building.

2. The grounds for this Court’s argument are as follows: (a) the part concerning the Plaintiff’s argument and the summary of the Defendant’s argument are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases; and (b) such part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. On October 23, 2014, the board of directors of the management body held on October 23, 2014, as described in the foregoing paragraph (2), defects exist in the instant resolution of which C, etc. was elected as executive officers of the recommendation of the management body of commercial buildings, as described in the foregoing paragraph (2), but the new director was not elected upon the recommendation of the management body of commercial buildings, and as such, the J was elected as the representative of the management body of the integrated management body only with the attendance and consent of four members including J et al., while a legitimate director meeting was not constituted. Thus, the instant resolution

B. The Defendant’s assertion is an executive at the management body meeting of August 30, 2014.