1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts that C does not have a resolution to appoint C as the manager of the defendant management body, and C is not in the position of the manager, and against this, the defendant asserts that C was appointed as the manager on June 30, 2015 by a written resolution under Article 41 (1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act").

Judgment

1) Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "where there exists an agreement in writing with at least 4/5 of sectional owners and voting rights regarding the matters determined to be resolved at the management body meeting, it shall be deemed that there exists a resolution by the management body meeting." According to Article 24(2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, a resolution by the management body meeting to appoint a manager may also be adopted in a written resolution under Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and such written resolution is to be treated the same as a resolution by the management body meeting without the opening of the management body meeting, so it is not necessary for the management body meeting to convene and hold such written resolution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da1819, Aug. 30, 2016). Since the defendant newly constructed the aggregate building in this case and then purchased it to the management body, which is an implementer of the management body, the management body of the aggregate building in principle can be implemented by the third person.