1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant asserted that six representative members were elected at the management body meeting of the Plaintiff, and on November 28, 2014, pursuant to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules on Standards for Collective Housing Management (hereinafter “Standard Rules”) enacted pursuant to Article 28(4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act”), six representative members were appointed as managers and temporary managers D are no longer the Plaintiff’s managers.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed by D who is not a temporary custodian is unlawful.

B. Article 24(3) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "the manager shall be appointed or dismissed by a resolution of the management body meeting: Provided, That the regulations stipulate that the manager shall be appointed or dismissed by a resolution of the management body meeting pursuant to Article 26-2, and Article 29(1) of the same Act provides that the establishment, amendment, and repeal of the regulations shall be approved by at least 3/4 of the sectional owners and at least 3/4 of voting rights at the management body meeting." Article 28(4) of the same Act provides that "the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Special Self-Governing City Mayor, Special Self-Governing City Mayor, Do Governor, and Special Self-Governing Province Governor shall prepare and disseminate standard regulations for the efficient and fair management of the building, site

Considering the language and purport of the above provisions, the standard rules are merely the subject of reference in setting and amending the management rules, and in order to make them the subject of the management rules, the consent of more than 3/4 of sectional owners and more than 3/4 of voting rights is required.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff decided to amend the management rules to the standard rules. Thus, the plaintiff's custodian is Article 24 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act.