1. The agenda items for the appointment of the administrator and the enactment of the management rules by the defendant at the extraordinary management body meeting on December 22, 2016.

A. As the J and F approved the instant resolution by the sectional owners of the instant building, the above resolution is valid.

2. The following facts or circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings in the statement No. 1 of Eul evidence, namely, the management body's purpose is to implement the business related to the management of building, site and attached facilities; the regulations of the management body are to determine the matters between the sectional owners on the management or use of building, site and attached facilities; it is not determined as to what the title is the regulations; Article 26-2 of the Multi-Family Building Act provides that the management body may have a management committee as prescribed by its regulations. The minutes of the management body's meeting of this case are 5. The meeting of this case are -1. The election of the manager from December 22, 2016 to E: the election of the manager: -2. The management body's rules attached to the management body; see the management rules; * the management committee.

In light of the facts stated as L, N,O, and P, and the Defendant did not explain the reasons for the decision, it is reasonable to deem that the administrative rules adopted at the meeting of the instant management body constituted the provisions under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, in full view of the fact that the administrative rules adopted by the resolution of this case were not the regulations.

In addition, Article 29(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that the establishment of regulations shall require the consent of at least 3/4 (75%) of sectional owners and at least 3/4 (75%) of voting rights at the managing body's meeting of this case. The fact that the resolution was adopted at the managing body's meeting of this case with the consent of at least 63.63% of the sectional owners of the building of this case and at least 4.98% of voting rights is the same as seen earlier. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable.

The defendant's assertion that the J and F approved the resolution of this case after the resolution of this case was cured.