1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Basic Facts

The defendant is an organization comprised of representatives from E Apartments in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case").

The management rules of the apartment of this case, the council of occupants' representatives and the auditor shall be elected from among the representatives of each Dong through the general, equality, direct and secret election of all occupants, etc., but where there are at least two candidates, the multi-party voters shall be elected, and where there are at least one candidates, with the consent of at least 1/10 of all occupants, etc. and with the consent of a majority of voters (Article 22-2(1)), and where there is no candidate or no person elected after the election, they shall be elected by the method under Article 50(

(Article 22-2(2). Meanwhile, Article 50(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 27444, Aug. 11, 2016) provides that “The council of occupants’ representatives shall elect officers from among the representatives of each building with the consent of a majority of its members (referring to the prescribed number of members by the management rules, and referring to the number of elected members, if two-thirds or more of the members of the council of occupants’ representatives are elected).”

On July 28, 2015, the election commission of the apartment in this case announced a special election of the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives, and the two occupants were standing, but have resigned on August 3, 2015.

In accordance with the above management rules and the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, the Defendant decided to elect the Chairperson as a simplified election system, and on August 5, 2015, 26 of the 30 representative of each building (at least 44 persons, at least 2/3), who was elected at the time, attended 26 members of the 30 representative of each building (at least 44 persons, at least 2/3 of the fixed number), and the Defendant’s Intervenor received 15 votes at the meeting

(hereinafter referred to as “instant resolution”). The Intervenor joining the Defendant as the president, on August 5, 2015, disputed whether the quorum of the instant resolution is satisfied.