○○○○ Apartment Autonomous Management Association (Law Firm KON-ro, Attorneys Park Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

October 26, 2017

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Nonparty 2 (date of birth 2 omitted) and the Nonparty (date of birth 1 omitted).

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 1 shall pay 9,067,922 and 15% interest per annum from September 1, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 9,067,922 interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment;

B. Defendant 2 shall pay 4,516,116 won and the amount at each rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2016 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff 17,037,147 and the above amount, 10,000,000 won with 5% per annum from April 1, 2014 to the date of delivery of a copy of each complaint of this case from May 4, 2016 to the date of full payment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

We examine the legality of the instant lawsuit.

The plaintiff asserts that the non-party was elected as the representative of the plaintiff by 18 members present at the general meeting of the plaintiff opened on March 10, 2017, which is the management body of the 10-story apartment units and stores located in Jongno-gu Seoul ( Address omitted).

Pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Article 23(1) of the Plaintiff’s Association Rule, and Article 3(1)2 of the Plaintiff’s Association Rule, the Plaintiff, a management body, is comprised of all sectional owners of the above multi-family housing and stores, and comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and overall arguments in Article 23 through 31 (including paper numbers), the above multi-family housing and stores have 64 sections of exclusive ownership, and among them, (No. 1 omitted), and (No. 2 omitted) are co-owned by Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4. Thus, even if the voting rights of the portion of exclusive ownership for which co-owners are available are considered as one, it is recognized that there is one sectional owner, and 63 sectional owners. In addition, Article 5(4) of the Plaintiff’s Association Rule (Evidence 2 omitted) of the Plaintiff’s Association Rule provides that the president of the Plaintiff shall be elected at a general meeting with the consent of a majority of the members present at the meeting.

Therefore, in order for the Nonparty to be elected at the general meeting on March 10, 2017, as the representative of the Plaintiff, at least 32 members, who are at least a majority of the 63 members of the Plaintiff, shall be present at the above general meeting. A majority of the participants shall be elected from the present general meeting. However, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, 27 members were present at the above general meeting, and therefore, the elected Nonparty cannot be deemed to have the authority

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's member is 41 members, but it cannot be accepted as the plaintiff's rules and arguments against Article 23 (1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, which consist of all sectional owners of the above multi-family housing and stores.

In addition, according to the records, Nonparty 2 filed the instant lawsuit on April 1, 2016 on behalf of the Plaintiff, and on April 5, 2017, the representative of the Plaintiff was changed to the Nonparty through the correction of the party indication, and the Nonparty cannot be deemed a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Nonparty 2 was legally elected as the Plaintiff’s representative (i.e., Nonparty 2 was elected as the Plaintiff’s representative on March 27, 2014 according to each of the statements No. 11-1 and No. 2, although Nonparty 2 was elected as the Plaintiff’s representative on March 27, 2014, it is difficult to recognize that Nonparty 2 was legally elected from the Plaintiff’s representative on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the name of the participant is different from the Plaintiff on the register, and it is difficult to recognize that Nonparty 2 was a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as filed by a person who is not authorized to represent the plaintiff, it shall be dismissed, and the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the non-party 2 and the non-party, and it is so decided as per

Judges Lee Jin-jin