1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal are the defendant (appointed party), the appointed party C, and D.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff was the chairperson and the 101 Dong-dong representative of the E-House Council of Residents' Representatives (hereinafter "the apartment of this case" and "the council of occupants' representatives of this case") in Yangyang-si.

around September 2013, F retired from office while serving as the Dong 102 apartment units of this case, and Defendant B, the F’s spouse, was appointed as Dong 102 representative by the resolution of the council of occupants’ representatives of this case around January 2015.

G was the 103 apartment unit of this case and the Selection C was the 104 unit representative.

On May 2015, the Appointor D was elected as the Dong representative of the instant apartment building 105, but registered as Dong representative around June 2015.

B. Defendant B, 103 Dong representative G, 104 Dong representative C, and 104 Dong representative C, who worked as the Dong representative of the instant apartment 102 Dong, attended the instant council of occupants’ representatives on May 22, 2015, and dismissed the Plaintiff from the president on the grounds of violating the apartment management rules, etc., and consented to the resolution on the agenda on which Defendant B was appointed as the president (hereinafter “instant resolution”); and Defendant B posted a notice on the bulletin board of the instant apartment on May 26, 2015, stating the contents of the instant resolution.

C. On June 3, 2015, the Defendants posted a false official door several times on the instant apartment bulletin board as the title “(101 representative and the grounds for dismissal of A (hereinafter “A”)”.

On March 31, 2015, the representative meeting was held on March 31, 2015, but the plaintiff was found to be invalid as it did not meet his own intent.

The plaintiff, under the name of receiving four minutes of the written consent of residents who do not have any rules, rejected the registration by treating D of the representative 105 representative as disqualified without any ground.

On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff violated the convening procedure and held the representative meeting as confidential.

From the viewpoint of the representative, he/she tried to look at the agenda that was presented as a result of the apartment, for two consecutive months on the ground that he/she does not appear in his/her mind, and is ethic and hostile.