1. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor joining the defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a management body established pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”) with respect to B located in Suwon-si District D (hereinafter “the instant building”), and the Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the instant building and a member of the Defendant.

B. From May 16, 2015 to June 1, 2015, the Defendant publicly announced that the Intervenor was appointed as the Defendant’s custodian, from the sectional owners and occupants of the instant building, that the Defendant approved the Defendant’s appointment of the Intervenor as the Defendant’s custodian (hereinafter “instant written resolution”), from among the 353 sectional owners on June 2, 2015, the affirmative votes of 286 (81%) from among the 353 sectional owners, and the affirmative votes of 82% from the voting rights of 82%.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The term of office of the administrator under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings under Article 24 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings shall be set by the rules within the limit of two years.

Since the term of office of the receiver is a maximum of two years.

The starting date of the term of office of the defendant assistant intervenor appointed as a custodian by the written resolution of this case disputing the effect of the plaintiff is May 20, 2015, and the two-year period has elapsed at the time of the closing of argument in this court, and the term of office of the defendant assistant intervenor may be deemed expired.

However, since there is room for Defendant’s assistant intervenor to perform the duties of custodian and dispute over the management of the building in this case continues to exist for several years, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the written resolution in this case.

The plaintiff's assertion that there is no benefit of lawsuit in the lawsuit of this case and the written resolution of this case is invalid is justified in all of the plaintiff's assertion that there is no benefit of appeal in the appeal of the defendant's supplementary intervenor.