1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s temporary management body meeting held on October 9, 2014.

The defendant is a management body comprised of all sectional owners of E buildings located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

Plaintiff

A was appointed as the Defendant’s manager at the meeting of the management body on June 8, 2011, and was reappointed at the regular meeting of the management body (hereinafter “previous meeting”) held on July 25, 2014 as the manager.

Plaintiff

B, C, D, and F are sectional owners of the instant building.

On the other hand, the emergency response committee composed of H, I, J (hereinafter “H”) and F as its main axis from around 2010, engaged in the activities of receiving delegations from the sectional owners of the building of this case for the removal of existing administrators and the appointment of new administrators.

On May 7, 2014, the sectional owner of the instant building, who is the side of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee, filed an application for permission to convene an extraordinary management body meeting with the Seoul Central District Court 2014 non-conforming82 on May 7, 2014. The said court granted permission to dismiss the current manager and to convene an extraordinary management body meeting for the purpose of the meeting.

The Emergency Countermeasure Committee held a temporary meeting (hereinafter “instant meeting”) on October 9, 2014 by giving a notice of convening a meeting from around September 17, 2014. Of the 1,308 sectional owners of the instant building, 867 members of the said meeting were present at the meeting, a resolution was adopted (hereinafter “resolution”) by dismissing Plaintiff A and appointing F as a new manager (860 marks”) at the said meeting, while the 1,308 sectional owners of the instant building were present.

The letter of resolution by J, which was used in the resolution of this case, was accompanied by 542 letter of delegation by sectional owners, 265 letter of delegation by sectional owners, and 46 letter of delegation by sectional owners in the letter of resolution by H

(Total 853 and hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant power of attorney”). On the ground that the process of the pertinent provisional disposition lawsuit, Plaintiff A, B, and C are invalid against F in the Seoul Central District Court (2014Kahap1754).