1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against D who is represented by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, as the management body of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu, an aggregate building, has embezzled management expenses received from the sectional owners while managing the above building, and thus seeking its return, the defendant asserts that D, expressed as the plaintiff's representative, is not a legitimate manager elected pursuant to the provisions of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act"), and that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful since it was filed by a person who has no legitimate representative authority.

On the other hand, Articles 23, 24(1) and (2), and 25(1) of the Multi-Family Building Act provide, “If the sectional ownership relationship for the building is established, the management body established with the aim of carrying out the business of managing the building, site and attached facilities by all sectional owners. If there are at least ten sectional owners, the management body shall represent the management body and appoint a manager to execute the business of the management body. The manager shall not be required to be sectional owners, and the term of office shall be determined by the regulations within the limit of two years. The manager shall be appointed or dismissed by a resolution of the management body’s meeting: Provided, That the manager shall be appointed or dismissed by a resolution of the management body’s meeting: Provided, That if

In this case, D must be legally appointed as a manager in accordance with the above law in order for D to legitimately represent Arain's management body, and each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 through 5 alone is insufficient to deem D to have been legally appointed as a manager through the resolution of the management body meeting (including the resolution in writing), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

2. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is dismissed as it is illegal as a lawsuit brought by a person without the power of representation, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.