All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows: ① the statement of evidence Nos. 7 through 15, which is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiffs’ non-assignment of recess hours as evidence submitted by the court of first instance, is rejected; ② the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of the pertinent part as stated in paragraph (2) is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; thus, it is acceptable

2. The witness E’s testimony shall be deleted from two pages 4 of the first instance judgment (based on recognition) that are either written or added.

In the 7th instance judgment of the first instance court, the "by the evidence mentioned above" was added to "by the evidence mentioned above and the statement mentioned in Eul or Eul or 9 through 16," respectively.

Part 8 of the first instance judgment (3) 1 of the first instance judgment "E is present as a witness in the relevant case."

The following shall be added to section 8 of the first instance judgment.

Defendant D did not take disciplinary action against security guards, including the Plaintiffs, on the ground that they did not receive a visit during the recess hours, and the head of the guard team demanded them to visit the door-to-door via the head of the guard team to visit the door-to-door officers after the recess hours or instruct security guards to see their face at the beginning during the recess hours. ⑤ It appears that the security guards could have been often engaged in the business of parking control, domestic waste disposal, etc. during the recess hours. However, it appears that this was the cause of the instant apartment management office’s instruction or the instant apartment management office’s civil petition, and it is difficult for Defendant D’s security guards to view that they directly directed them to handle the above business (part of the security guards were entitled to help the instant apartment management office and individually consult with the instant

. Defendant D is the council of occupants’ representatives due to the above problems.