1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

B. The Defendant asserts that, from March 31, 2015, the Seoul High Court Decision 2016Ra20140 decided to dismiss the Defendant’s application from March 31, 2015, to July 1, 2016, the Seoul High Court Decision 2016Ra20140 decided to dismiss the Defendant’s application for a provisional disposition prohibiting interference with the work performed by the former administrator as the representative and manager of the management body and the employees of the management office, and that, as long as the Defendant was unable to perform his duties as the manager due to interference with the J, etc., the above period cannot be included in the term of office of I, and accordingly, the term of office of I’s manager has not expired. 2) The Defendant and I asserted that: (i) the evidence No. 3, and No. 1 were written and arguments; (ii) in light of the overall purport of the pleading and arguments, the Defendant and I applied for a provisional disposition prohibiting interference with the work performed by the former administrator and the management office.

In light of these facts, I appears to have failed to perform a custodian's duty smoothly by dispute with J, etc. from March 31, 2015 to July 1, 2016 after I was elected as a custodian. However, such circumstance alone does not lead to any circumstance that the progress of the term is not suspended or discontinued, and otherwise, it is difficult to see that I's term of office has been suspended under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings or the Management Rules of the Condominium for the said period.

3. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified on the ground of its conclusion.