In accordance with the second preliminary claim added by this Court, F is not in the position of the defendant.

The court of first instance rejected the part of the plaintiffs' primary and primary claims seeking confirmation of invalidity and revocation of the resolution for the appointment of representative committee members, and dismissed the part of the claim seeking confirmation of invalidity and revocation of the resolution for the appointment of representative committee members, and accepted the second preliminary claims seeking confirmation of absence of the status of representative committee members.

Accordingly, only the plaintiffs filed an appeal for the confirmation and revocation of the invalidity of the resolution to appoint a custodian among the primary and primary claims in the judgment of the first instance. After that, this court added the claim for confirmation of the absence of the status of a custodian to the second preliminary claim, and the above appeal was completely withdrawn.

Therefore, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of the absence of the status of the administrator in addition to the second preliminary claim by this Court.

Basic Facts

The reasons why this Court is indicated in this part are as follows: (a) except in the case of using “ July 18, 2018” as “ July 18, 2018” of the first instance judgment No. 3, 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the same as that of the first instance judgment; (b) thereby, this Court cites the summary, including the summary, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion and determination was legally elected by F from the meeting of the management division of this case as the defendant's custodian.

Since the two-year term of office expires, F is no longer in the status of the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiffs seek confirmation against the defendant that F is not in the status of the defendant.

Judgment

Article 24 (2) of the Act on Condominium Buildings provides that "the term of office of a manager shall be prescribed by the regulations within the limit of two years" and limits the term of office of a manager within two years. The term of office of F appointed as a manager through a resolution of the instant management assembly is reasonable to deem that the term of office of F has expired as of July 18, 2020 after two years from July 18, 2018 when the said resolution was adopted. Thus, F is the defendant's above.