1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the Plaintiff is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the seven underground floors and the twenty-threeth floor aggregate buildings located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a company that managed the instant building from October 1, 2006 to November 30, 2010, and Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) owns the entire four commercial buildings and 14 households of officetels among the instant building.

C. As the actual owner of Plaintiff D, Defendant B was appointed as the Defendant’s manager on October 23, 2010, and was dismissed on December 9, 2014, Defendant B was the Defendant’s husband and wife, and Defendant B was the representative director as Defendant D’s husband and wife, and Defendant F was the representative director as Defendant C’s children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, 11, 16, 20

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. A manager H, the representative of the Plaintiff’s defense, was appointed at the management body meeting on April 4, 2017 as a manager; however, the said manager’s resolution on appointment should be invalidated or revoked on the ground that there exists a defect.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is brought by a person without the power of representation.

B. However, the evidence presented by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a reason for invalidation or revocation in the resolution that H was appointed as the representative of the Plaintiff at the management body meeting on April 4, 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(The parties concerned agreed to follow the conclusion of the lawsuit at issue, such as the cancellation of the management body meeting’s resolution, with respect to the invalidity or revocation of the H’s resolution to appoint a manager, and even in the lawsuit above, H did not consider that the resolution was invalid or revoked as the Plaintiff’s manager.