2. Of the instant lawsuit, the part corresponding to the revoked part.

As to the instant lawsuit claiming that the Association is the owner of the instant building and seeking the return of unjust enrichment from the delivery of the instant building and the possession and use of the instant building, the Defendant asserted as the representative of the Plaintiff Association does not have the power of representation. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since it did not have been filed by the legitimate representative of the Plaintiff Association, it is examined as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence 5 through 12 (including the number of directors; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 39, and 40 evidence, the plaintiff Association was established on January 9, 2001 with D and 60 members, and D as president at the time of its establishment, and D as president and directors were appointed respectively (However, the corporate register contains no registration of D as president, and "no representative authority other than directors D" was registered), the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff Association, one president of the Association, five to 10 directors (including the president), three auditors present at the general meeting, and the term of office of the executive officers of the three years before the general meeting, and where the president becomes vacant or convening the general meeting of the Association or where the voting rights of the plaintiff are called at the general meeting, the above appointment of the president and appointment of the president and appointment of the 2nd director and the appointment of the 2nd director and appointment of the 2nd director and 3th director and 15th or more of the plaintiff Association.