1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim that has been reduced and added in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff .

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 1994, the commercial building of this case was opened in Seo-gu, Daejeon.

B. The Plaintiff Association is an organization consisting of shop occupants of the instant commercial building, and the Defendant Management Body is an organization that professes that it is a management body under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, which consists of sectional owners of the instant commercial building (hereinafter “Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings”).

C. The dispute progress between the plaintiffs and the defendants surrounding the right to manage the commercial building of this case is as shown in the attached Table 4.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 37 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the appeal by the defendant managing body is lawful;

A. Defendant D, the representative of Defendant management body claiming the plaintiffs, received a provisional disposition order to suspend his duties as the representative of Defendant management body, and thus, is not qualified as the representative of Defendant management body.

Therefore, the instant appeal filed by Defendant D as the representative of Defendant D’s management body is unlawful.

B. According to the evidence No. 3, the Daejeon District Court rendered a provisional disposition to the effect that, in the case of the suspension of representative duties and the provisional disposition to appoint provisional directors on December 15, 2014, the purport of the application of the applicant P, Q, B, etc. is not the suspension of the execution of duties as the representative of the management body, in light of the reasons for the application, the applicant P, Q, B, etc., and the Defendant D shall not perform all duties related to the management of the commercial building of this case including the collection of management fees, etc., by deeming that the applicant D is seeking a suspension of all duties related to the management of the commercial building of this case, not the suspension of duties as the representative of the management body.

According to this, Defendant D can only be deemed to have received a decision to suspend the performance of duties concerning the "management of the commercial building of this case" and it cannot be deemed to have received a provisional disposition order to suspend duties as the representative of Defendant D management body. Thus, the Plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant management body of the plaintiff A.