1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendants is as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. The net A, an aggregate building, was one of the sectional owners of Sungnam-si G in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, but died on January 25, 2018, and Plaintiff B, D, and C succeeded to the deceased.

B. Defendant G management body (hereinafter “Defendant G management body”) is a management body under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings composed of sectional owners in G (hereinafter “Building Act”).

C. Defendant H was appointed as the administrator of Defendant H’s management body on July 4, 2014, and was reappointed on August 24, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 41, 64, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, 31, 32 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. In regard to the assertion that the plaintiffs were not legally elected as the administrator of the defendant management body, and that the dismissal claim under Article 24(5) of the Multi-Family Building Act should be dismissed from the administrator of the defendant management body on the ground that there is a ground for dismissal claim under Article 24(5) of the Multi-Family Building Act, the defendants asserted that there is no legal interest in the lawsuit seeking dismissal of the defendant H on the ground that the defendant H is not in the current management body.

B. Determination 1) Article 24(5) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that each sectional owner may file a claim with the court for the removal of a custodian if there are circumstances making it inappropriate for the custodian to perform his/her duties, and that such sectional owner’s claim for removal of a custodian is aimed at depriving of the custodian’s status. As such, the claim for dismissal of a custodian against a sectional owner is for the benefit of lawsuit only when the other party to the claim for dismissal is in the status of a custodian at the time of the closing of argument. (2) According to the written evidence evidence No. 30 and 31, Suwon District Court’s Sungnam branch branch support on November 14, 2017.