1. The independent party intervenor's appeal is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor of the independent party.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows: “J” in Part 3-2-3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “ Q”; “J” shall be read as “ Q”; “ Q” shall be read as “ Q”; and the following judgments shall be added to Part 6-14 of the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the Intervenor asserts that the management rules amended on April 16, 2007 (Evidence 1) referred to as C’s lawful and effective management rules, but the evidence submitted by the Intervenor, including the witness Q, is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the following circumstances revealed: ① C’s management committee consists of one operating committee chairperson elected by the general meeting of residents or residents’ voting, two auditors, and 10 operating committee members appointed by the operating chairperson upon the recommendation of the occupants; ②’s deliberation on the budget management expenses and business plans of C’s housing, which are multi-family housing, and resolution on the maintenance and repair of common areas, and the maintenance and repair of common areas, etc. for its own purpose, and the collective agreement between occupants and non-corporate representatives of the steering committee (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Da37079, Sept. 8, 2016).