1. The plaintiff B management body's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff A the real estate stated in the attached list.

3...

1. The Plaintiff’s management body asserts that the Defendant without any title occupies and uses the instant parking lot, and claims for return of unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to the rent stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant. On the other hand, the Defendant’s resolution to appoint A as the representative of the Plaintiff’s management body is null and void, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is instituted by a person without the power of representation (this refers to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the part of the main claim). The Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) provides that if the number of sectional owners is more than 10, the management body shall represent the management body and appoint a manager to execute its affairs (Article 24(1)); the intent of the management body shall be determined by a majority and a majority of the voting rights of the sectional owners (Article 38(1)); and each sectional owner’s voting rights shall conform to the ratio of the area of the portion of exclusive ownership (Article 37(1) and (12)12(1)) of the Act).

Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 7, the management rules of the Plaintiff management body (hereinafter “instant rules”) pursuant to the purport of the above Act on Aggregate Buildings, the resolution of the management body meeting on the election of the manager (head of the management body) shall be approved by the owners and the majority of voting rights (Article 21(3)4), and the voting rights of each sectional owner shall be calculated by the ratio of the registered area of the section for exclusive use on the register of the building.

(h) It can be known that the ruling is prescribed in section 22(1).

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, and 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same), the plaintiff management body constituted all sectional owners of Eul located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter the "the aggregate building of this case").