The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous deliberative body organized to determine important matters concerning the management on behalf of occupants, etc. of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On November 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s election of the president or auditor (hereinafter “instant election”) conducted from April 16, 2018 to April 17, 2018 from the instant apartment is unlawful on the ground that the election commission of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant election commission”) was against Article 15 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, and was unlawful on the ground that it was not constituted five or more members (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On January 7, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she would take administrative measures, such as administrative fines, if he/she fails to comply with the said corrective order.

C. On January 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on July 8, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (if available, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the following grounds, and the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1. Since the appointment of B as a member of the instant election commission is null and void, the instant election commission was not lawfully constituted from the beginning.

Even if the election commission of this case was duly constituted, the number of resignations in B was insufficient at the time of the election of this case.

Therefore, the election of this case was not properly managed and supervised by the election commission.