1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 17, 2017, the council of occupants’ representatives of B apartment located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “council of occupants’ representatives”) amended part of the management rules of the instant apartment (hereinafter “amended management rules”) and among the contents thereof, there was a change in the fixed number of the election commission of the instant apartment (hereinafter “election commission”) from 5 to 9 to 5 persons.

The president of the council of occupants' representatives reported to the defendant the amended management rules on February 13, 2017, and the defendant accepted them on February 14, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant acceptance”). (b)

On February 13, 2017 and February 14, 2017, the Election Commission (the Chairperson) announced the additional recruitment of four election management members. On February 22, 2017, the election management commission commissioned C, D, E, and F as additional election management members.

C. On February 22, 2017, G Management Members G and H requested the Defendant to “as the Chairperson (Plaintiff) of the Election Management Committee independently commissioned four election management members without undergoing a meeting of the election commission, he/she would interfere with administrative measures (Corrective Order).”

On March 3, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Election Commission on the ground that “(i) an election commission is comprised of five members pursuant to Article 44 of the amended Management Rules, and (ii) an additional commission is in violation of Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act and the Management Rules; and (iii) Article 44(7) of the amended Management Rules provides that the Committee shall make a decision with the consent of a majority of its members, but the additional commission is in violation

(hereinafter “instant corrective order”). E.

Election Commission (five persons, except four persons additionally commissioned as described in the foregoing paragraph (b), plaintiffs, I, G, J, and H) dismissed the plaintiff with the consent of three persons (G, J, and H) March 6, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, A 1 to .