beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
(2) On the other hand, the court below's findings of fact and determination of the first instance court are justifiable even if additional arguments and evidence are presented to the court.
A. As to this safety defense, (1) the director of the managing body was appointed at the meeting of the Plaintiff’s managing body held on June 25, 2016, when the Defendant’s argument was pending in the first instance trial; (2) it is unlawful for the managing body to proceed with the instant lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff by the managing body on behalf of the Plaintiff, which had been elected by the new chairperson at the meeting of the managing body, on behalf of the Plaintiff. (2) If the sectional ownership is established on the construction of the judgment building, the managing body is established for the purpose of carrying out the business of managing the building and its site and its accessory facilities (Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings), and if the sectional owner is ten or more, the managing body shall represent the managing body and appoint a manager to execute the business of the managing body (Article 24(1) of the same Act); (3) the manager shall exercise the authority and duty
(Article 25(1)3 of the same Act. On the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the rules of the Plaintiff’s management body provide that “the manager shall be elected at the meeting of the management body; the term of office shall be three years; if the selection of the successor is delayed due to inevitable circumstances, the manager may perform his/her duties until his/her successor is appointed,” and on May 25, 2013, the Plaintiff may perform his/her duties until his/her successor is appointed.”