1. The Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff on January 11, 2014, and the Defendant’s order of standby as of April 9, 2014 is invalid.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a non-corporate body established pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings for the purpose of carrying out a project on the management of “B” and its site and its affiliated facilities (hereinafter “instant building, etc.”) in Seongbuk-si, Seongbuk-si, and employs not less than five workers at all times as a non-corporate body established pursuant to Article 23(1).

B. On April 29, 2010, the Defendant held a general meeting and appointed D as a manager. The president, etc. of the “B” shopping mall, which was disputed with the Defendant regarding the management right of the instant building, filed an application for provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties with the Suwon District Court’s Sung-nam branch, by asserting that the appointment of the manager becomes invalid.

On August 13, 2013, the above court suspended the performance of the duties of D custodian and decided to appoint attorney F as acting person.

On September 26, 2013, F publicly announced that “the appointment of the Plaintiff as the temporary managing director of the instant building, etc.” was “F.”

C. On November 11, 2013, F submitted an application to permit the resignation of an acting director to the above court, and on the same day, F publicly announced that “the appointment of a temporary management officer against the Plaintiff is withdrawn as of November 11, 2013.”

On December 23, 2013, G made a decision to change an acting representative from F to attorney G. On January 11, 2014, G made a public announcement stating that “If an existing employee has been performing his/her duties prior to a decision to replace an acting representative, it is difficult to deem that he/she had entered into a labor contract with a person with legitimate authority, and thus, it does not recognize his/her status,” “existing employees are not entitled to receive remuneration, namely, suspension of their duties, and even if the management body performs its duties without consent,” (hereinafter “public announcement as of January 11, 2014”).

(1) On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the Defendant on January 11, 2014.

2.3