1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) composed of all sectional owners of the building, which is the 11st floor of the building, F, G underground, and ground in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

The Plaintiffs are sectional owners of the instant building.

B. On May 18, 2016, H issued a temporary notice of the management body meeting on May 30, 2016 for the purpose of appointing a new manager as the Defendant’s manager.

H had resigned from the office of custodian on the same day.

C. At the temporary management body meeting held by the Defendant on May 30, 2016, a resolution was made to appoint E as the manager of the instant building with the consent of all members present at the meeting by 16 sectional owners and with the consent of all members present at the meeting (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is as follows, and the resolution of this case is invalid.

① Since the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) and B were selected and notified as an exercise of voting rights based on the section for exclusive use jointly owned by others, the total number of sectional owners shall be deemed 35 persons. The instant resolution was made by a resolution of 160,000 persons who fall short of the majority of all sectional owners.

② Under the ground level I, J, and I through K, the Plaintiff and H, H, L, and M (hereinafter referred to as “H”) share one-half shares, respectively. The Plaintiff and H did not have any provision regarding the exercise of voting rights based on each of the above sections for exclusive use.

Nevertheless, H arbitrarily exercised voting rights based on each of the above sections of exclusive ownership, and if the total number of voting rights is excluded from the number of voting rights exercised based on each of the above sections of exclusive ownership, there is a defect that the resolution of this case falls short of the majority of voting rights.

③ The instant resolution is adopted.