All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case was attached without the consent of the Defendants, the managing body, in violation of Article 49 of the Management Rules.

The representative meeting of the occupants of the instant apartment, on July 30, 2015 and August 3, 2015, terminated the management contract of the instant apartment, but the election management committee has already lost the management authority and illegally occupied the management office, and only obtained the consent of the head of the non-party company managing the side of the instant public notice.

The chairman of the election management committee D tried to force the representative of 103 special election even though it could be a ground for promotion prescribed in Article 35-2(1) of the Management Rules in the state that a fine is determined due to the offense of insult and defamation against Defendant A at the time of the incident.

The removal of each public notice of this case by Defendant B, the president of the management office, and Defendant A, the president of the resident representative council, constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act as inevitable to prevent the confusion of residents.

2. The phrase “act that does not contravene social norms” as prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements of legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected legal interests and the interests of the law and the interests of the law, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3902, Apr. 13, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances recognized by the court below and the court of first instance and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the occupant representative meeting, namely, disputes over the legality of the termination of the management contract of the apartment contract of this case between the resident representative meeting and the non-party company.