1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since C brought to the position of the president acting for the president, who is the Plaintiff’s representative, or C cannot be deemed as the acting director’s position.

According to the purport of the entire argument in the evidence No. 3 of this case, where the plaintiff management committee deems that the period of suspension of duties of the chairperson exceeds one month on November 29, 2018, Article 53(1) and Article 53(1) and Article 53(1) of the Management Rules (Appointment of Substitutes) of the management rules on November 29, 2018, or the period of vicarious performance exceeds one month, the management committee must immediately appoint an acting director and appoint an election committee to act

(2) Where the remaining term of a substitute becomes less than four months, the Management Committee may appoint a substitute by means of an secret vote for an indefinite name without convening an extraordinary general meeting.

Pursuant to this, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s acting director was appointed D as the president.

However, according to the above evidence, D, who becomes the acting president of the Plaintiff, held an extraordinary general meeting on March 27, 2019 for the election of the president, but did not elect the president due to lack of the number of votes. Since it is recognized that C again elected the president as the acting president pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Management Rules on March 28, 2019, it is recognized that C is a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff elected under the Management Rules.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's main defense.

2. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the building A (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) in Busan, and the defendant is the owner of the second basement E store in the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant store”). The store in this case is management fees of KRW 7,060 from June 2015 to August 2016.