1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is an organization composed of all occupants for the management and operation of the Daegu-gu A Apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). C filed the lawsuit of this case in the qualification of the representative of the plaintiff. The defendant is the former representative of the plaintiff.

B. On June 17, 2011, the Defendant, while serving as the president of the Plaintiff’s representative, found that there was a mistake in selecting a construction business operator who submitted the highest estimate in the process of performing the apartment rooftop waterproof construction work, outer walls and creative mold waterproof construction, etc., and on June 17, 2011, the Defendant prepared a letter containing the following (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) stating that “I Recognizing that the Defendant, who is a Cabinet, would incur a total loss of KRW 10 million or KRW 14 million among the two above construction works,” and issued it to the Plaintiff upon authentication by a notary public.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit brought by C as a representative of the Plaintiff is unlawful, since C is a person who cannot become the representative of each building of A apartment, and therefore, C cannot become the representative of the Plaintiff.

C A lawsuit of this case was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff as the president of the Plaintiff, and D, an occupant of the apartment of this case, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of invalidity of the election that elected C as the president of the council of occupants’ representatives, as the Seo-gu District Court Branch 2016Gahap51133. However, the above court recognized the Plaintiff’s written written written written written written consent around October 2014, with the signature of 41 households from among the 51 households of the Plaintiff’s total number of 51 households, and then elected C as the president, according to the custom during that period, it is necessary to select a representative by signing a signature within the meaning of consent from more than a majority of the occupants.