1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs are some sectional owners of the “A or officetel” condominiums in Jeju, and the Defendant A or an officetel management body (hereinafter “Defendant management body”) is a non-corporate body naturally established with all sectional owners of the instant building pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Building Act”), and Defendant B is currently claiming the status of the chairperson of the management body and manager of the instant building.

B. Defendant B, based on the articles of association of the instant Building Steering Committee (hereinafter “instant articles of association”), was newly elected at the general meeting of sectional owners of the instant building as the chairperson of the steering committee, and came to have the status of the chairperson of the operating committee of the instant building and the representative of the managing body.

C. The above status of Defendant B can be seen as the manager and the chairman of the management committee under the Aggregate Buildings Act. The articles of association of this case, which was based on the election, did not obtain the consent of not less than 3/4 of sectional owners and not less than 3/4 of voting rights at the management body meeting at the time of its establishment, and its validity

Even if the above requirements are met, the articles of association of this case provides that ① a manager shall be appointed and the chairman of the management committee, which is an organization to supervise the execution of the affairs thereof, shall be held concurrently with the position of the manager, and ② the quorum requirement for the resolution for the election of the chairman of the management committee was set excessively low. This is the rules enacted in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and all the corresponding parts are invalid.

Therefore, in order for the above election against Defendant B to be lawful, in principle, the requirements and procedures under the Aggregate Buildings Act should have been met. Defendant B should be seen as the above articles of association.