1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiffs' primary claim part against the defendants is dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court’s judgment on this part of the basic facts is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of “1. Basic Facts”; and (b) thus, the same shall apply pursuant to the main sentence of

2. Whether the lawsuit against the Defendants is lawful

A. The plaintiffs in this part of the lawsuit asserted that defendant E should be dismissed from office as the chief executive officer of the defendant management committee pursuant to Article 24 (5) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") on the premise that the plaintiffs in this part of the lawsuit fall under the "management committee" of the whole shopping mall of this case or the "management committee" of the whole shopping mall of this case composed of four concurrent buildings.

B. Article 24 (5) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which is the object of a claim for removal of a manager under the Aggregate Buildings Act, provides that "if the manager has committed an unlawful act or any other reason inappropriate for performing his duties, each sectional owner may file a claim for removal of the manager with the court, which shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the management body (Article 52 of the Aggregate Buildings Act). Since the claim for removal of a manager against a sectional owner aims to deprive the person who is currently in the current status of the manager, the claim for removal of the manager against a sectional owner shall have interests in the lawsuit only when the other party

C. In the instant case, according to the evidence No. 3, Article 47 subparag. 3 of the Management Rules of the Defendant Steering Committee (hereinafter “Management Rules”) recognizes that Article 47 subparag. 3 of the Management Rules of the Defendant Steering Committee (hereinafter “Management Rules of this case”) stipulates the term of office for the head of the Steering Committee as two years, Defendant E, appointed as the head of the Steering Committee on March 10, 209, expired on March 9, 20

As to this, the Defendants asserted that they were reappointed whenever their terms of office expire after Defendant E.

The management rules of this case are set forth in Article 47.