1. I is not in the position of the defendant under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiffs are sectional owners of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Building (hereinafter “the instant condominium”), and the Defendant is a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings concerning the instant Condominium (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”).

B. On March 20, 2015, the fifth managing body meeting of the instant aggregate building (hereinafter “instant assembly”) was publicly announced on March 20, 2015. The agenda was ① the election of manager (representative of managing body), ② the election of executive officers of managing body (representative of managing body), ③ the re-authorization of the dismissal of existing executive officers.

C. On March 31, 2015, the instant assembly was held on March 31, 2015, and with the consent of 85 (62%) out of 137 total sectional owners and 9,644m2 (64%) out of 15,080m2 of total section for exclusive use, the resolution was made to dismiss the existing administrator J and elect I as a new administrator. The Defendant’s executive officers to elect one general secretary, two auditors, and two directors (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

Defendant and I filed an application against J, etc. for provisional disposition seeking the prohibition of interference with the duties of the management body and the manager of the management body, and on January 25, 2016, the first instance court rejected and dismissed the application (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Kahap50463), but at the appellate court on July 1, 2016, the decision of provisional disposition ordering Defendant and I to prohibit interference with the duties of the management body and the manager was finalized.

(Seoul High Court 2016Ra20140). [Grounds for recognition] did not dispute, each statement of Gap's 1 to 4, Eul's 1 and 3 to 5 (including provisional numbers), the whole purport of the pleadings, and the plaintiffs' assertion 1 I submitted at the meeting of this case, the power of attorney submitted at the meeting of this case, without specifying the meeting and agenda items delegated with voting rights, has no effect as it re-uses the existing power of attorney, and the meeting of this case was resolved by presenting only one of the items as a sole candidate for the meeting of this case without undergoing prior procedure for registration of the candidate

Therefore, I is a manager of the instant condominium building.