1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an organization established for the management of the common area of the commercial building among the building A, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), and the Defendant is the sectional owner of the store No. 26 under the ground of the instant commercial building.

B. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for management expenses on February 17, 2006, this court (this Court Decision 2006Na14355, Nov. 23, 2006) dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a legitimate management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”), and at the time, the Plaintiff’s representative C cannot be deemed a lawful management body appointed in compliance with the legal requirements set forth in the Act at the management body meeting where all sectional owners under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings were gathered, and the Plaintiff appealed, but the appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4516, Apr. 27, 2007).

C. After that, on February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff’s representative D announced that “The management rules have been amended with the consent of 99 of sectional owners and 390 of voting rights out of 437 voting rights,” on February 25, 2014, a notice stating that “the Plaintiff’s temporary assembly to revise and correct any part contrary to the Aggregate Buildings Act, among the existing management rules of the Plaintiff, was held on February 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant special assembly”); and on March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff’s representative D announced that “the management rules have been amended with the consent of 390 of 127 sectional owners and 127 voting rights.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant management rules” of the amended management rules at the instant special meeting D.

The Plaintiff held an ordinary general meeting on April 10, 2010 in accordance with the instant management rules, but it was difficult to carry out proceedings due to falling short of the attending members. On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff’s election management committee chairperson publicly announced the notice to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall hold a general meeting on April 25, 2014 and elect the president and the auditor.” Accordingly, on April 25, 2014, the instant notice was issued.