1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for nullification of the resolution of appointment of the president on September 29, 2014 is dismissed.

2. The Defendant on August 11, 2014

1. Basic facts

A. (1) The plaintiffs are the occupants of Busan Metropolitan Transportation Daegu D Apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and are the members of the election commission of the apartment of this case.

(The term of office of Plaintiff A is from April 21, 2014 to April 20, 2016, and the term of office of Plaintiff B and C, respectively, from December 29, 2012 to December 28, 2014). (2) The Defendant is an autonomous management body comprised of representatives of each apartment building of this case.

B. (1) On January 30, 2013, the judgment of invalidation of election (hereinafter “previous judgment of invalidation of election”) was finalized on May 23, 2014 with respect to I among the winners of election for the representative of each apartment building in the instant apartment building, which was implemented on January 30, 2013, including the dismissal and commission of election management members, the Defendant requested on May 30, 2014 that I conduct a special election for the representative of each Dong and the chairperson of the council of occupants’ representatives’ representatives, including the Plaintiffs.

(2) On July 25, 2014, the election commission did not have any opinion regarding whether a special election is held, the Defendant requested resignation on the ground that the election management commission did not conduct a special election within 60 days from the date of the previous judgment invalidating the election, which is the vacancy of the representative of each building. From August 4, 2014 to August 10, 2014, the Defendant urged four occupants to provide a written consent on the dismissal of four election management members who did not submit a written resignation.

(3) On August 11, 2014, the Defendant, upon receiving the consent of the occupants on August 11, 2014, consented to the removal of 571 households among the total 800 households, dismissed the Plaintiffs from the election management members. On the same day, the Defendant publicly announced the appointment of election management members, including the fact that the Plaintiffs were dismissed by the majority of the occupants, and that the appointment of the election management members cannot be commissioned as the election management members, and then, the Defendant’s acting president H commissioned E,

(c).