1. Of the instant lawsuit, the primary claim against Defendant C and the ancillary claim against the Defendants are all included.

Basic Facts

Under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the " Aggregate Buildings Act"), the status of the parties is a management body comprised of sectional owners of B shopping mall (hereinafter referred to as the "instant shopping mall"), which is not only D but also 2 lots of land in Jung-gu, Seoul, and the defendant C is a person who is in the position of the secretary general of the management body of the defendant C, and the plaintiff (appointed party, hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") and the designated parties are sectional owners of the shopping mall in this case.

On February 7, 2015, E appointed as a custodian at the regular meeting of the Defendant Management Body on the process of appointing the Secretary General through the election of the fourth manager, was recommended by Defendant C as the Secretary General of the Management Committee and appointed Defendant C as the Secretary General upon the resolution of the Management Committee, in accordance with the management rules of the Defendant Management Body.

Article 22 of the Management Rules of the defendant management body shall have an office under the management body to perform the duties of the manager, and the detailed matters shall be subject to separate provisions (paragraph (1)), and the office of the management body may have the Secretary-General and an appropriate number of officers or employees necessary for the operation of the management body (paragraph (2)), and the term of office of the Secretary-General shall be two years, and the term of office of the Director-General shall be two years, and that of

(3) is defined in subsection (3).

The relevant judgment became final and conclusive, on the other hand, F, a sectional owner of the shopping mall of this case, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Management Body seeking confirmation of the absence of a custodian status as E by this Court 2015Gahap7829, and obtained a favorable judgment from the above court on July 15, 2016. The Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the ordinary assembly resolution of this case against the Defendant Management Body as the manager of the Defendant Management Body, as of February 7, 2015, by which the Plaintiff et al. appointed E as the manager of the Defendant Management Body, G et al. as the managing member of the Defendant Management Body, and won the judgment from the above Court on October 27, 2016, and each of the above judgments became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition]