1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building Q and R both ground B buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) are the aggregate buildings of the 4th underground and the 11th ground floor size.

B. The Plaintiff is a management body under Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which consists of all sectional owners of the instant building.

C. The Defendants and the co-Plaintiff A corporation of the first instance trial (hereinafter “A”) are sectional owners who own some sections of the instant building or their shares.

On August 25, 2005, A and Defendant D were appointed as joint managers of the Plaintiff with AI on August 25, 2005, and AI resigned from the office of manager around June 2006.

[Plaintiff: (a) held a management body meeting on May 12, 2012 and passed a resolution to dismiss A from the joint manager; (b) prior to the appointment of the Plaintiff’s special agent, the appointment of A does not affect the litigation procedure. Meanwhile, although A filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the above resolution, A was sentenced to dismissal of A’s claim in the first instance court and the appellate court’s decision on dismissal resolution; and (c) currently is pending in the court of final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da27562) / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; (d) Party A’s evidence 1 and 2; (e) Party A’s evidence 9-1 through 3; and (e) Party B’s evidence 11-2; and the purport

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to Articles 17 and 25(1)2 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, a sectional owner of an aggregate building is obligated to pay the management cost of the section for common use and the share for the performance of the management of the management body regardless of whether it is actually used (no legitimate management body regulation exists with respect to the building in this case). On the ground that Defendant D is the manager of the building in this case, the remaining Defendants, who are their relatives, collect and pay the management expenses from the lessee, and are not leased the so-called “public room”.