관리인지위부존재확인의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts”; and (b) the same is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The 2nd judgment of the first instance court is in accordance with the following subparagraphs.
[C. The defendant shopping mall filed the instant lawsuit and decided on November 10, 2018 in which the plaintiff held a meeting on November 10, 2018 and again appoints defendant B as a custodian.]
2. We examine, ex officio, whether the lawsuit against Defendant B is legitimate or not.
A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status’s unstable danger. Since the subject of legal relationship as the manager of the shopping mall is the shopping mall, it can be removed from the Plaintiff’s right or legal status in a valid and proper manner by a resolution only when obtaining a confirmation judgment on the existence of the manager’s status against the shopping mall. The confirmation judgment against an individual manager, who is not the shopping mall association, does not have the effect on the shopping mall association, and thus, there is no interest in confirmation immediately. Thus, the lawsuit seeking such confirmation judgment is unlawful.
Furthermore, such legal doctrine also applies to cases where a custodian seeks confirmation of the absence of the status of a custodian against a shopping mall (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30676, 30683, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s non-existence of the status of a custodian against Defendant B, rather than the Defendant shopping mall, is confirmed.