1. We affirm that the Defendant’s resolution of dismissal against the Plaintiffs at the meeting of the Steering Committee on January 20, 2016 is invalid.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is a management body comprised of sectional owners of H shopping mall buildings located outside and outside two parcels of land in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the plaintiffs are sectional owners of the above building, and the defendant holds a steering committee on January 20, 2016 (hereinafter "Steering Committee of this case") and makes a resolution to dismiss the plaintiffs from the operating committee members (hereinafter "the resolution of this case"). It is recognized that the defendant was appointed by J as an acting administrator at the time of the instant steering committee.

The defendant's management rules (Evidence A 2) shall be held concurrently by the chairperson of the steering committee (Article 40 (1)), and if the defendant's administrator requests the dismissal of a majority of the members of the steering committee on the proposal of more than a majority of the members of the steering committee due to unfaithful conduct, such as the illegality, corruption, and malpractice of the operating committee, the chairperson of the steering committee (the chairperson) shall immediately convene the steering committee and decide on whether to dismiss the committee (Article 42 (1)), and the notification of the holding of the steering committee shall, in principle, be notified under the official letter in the name of the chairperson of the steering committee (chairperson of the steering

(Article 43, Section 4, paragraph 5).

However, the K convening of the instant operating committee was called by the receiver acting for the receiver.

there is no evidence to deem that the operating committee notified the convocation of the instant operating committee to the operating committee members.

Even if the JJ convened the instant steering committee, the resolution of the instant case is deemed to change the composition itself of the Defendant’s executive staff, and does not belong to the Defendant’s ordinary business. Therefore, it is permissible only when otherwise determined in the provisional disposition judgment or obtained permission from the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da70395, Feb. 11, 2010; 201Ma1438, Sept. 20, 201).