관리인지위부존재확인 등 청구
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.
2. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s warden on January 15, 2014.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are sectional owners of the instant building (the instant building consists of 82 households, but currently sectional owners calculated as one person if they jointly own 52 sections of exclusive ownership), and Defendant C Management Body (hereinafter “Defendant Management Body”) is a management body composed of all sectional owners for the purpose of implementing the instant building, site and accessory facilities management projects.
B. On January 21, 2014, Defendant management body held a management body meeting and passed a resolution to appoint Defendant B as a manager with the consent of 16 persons among 22 voting participants (hereinafter “instant resolution”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Defendant B’s defense prior to the merits of this case asserted that the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the absence of a manager status against an individual manager of the building of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. Thus, since the resolution of appointment of a manager of an aggregate building which is not a non-corporate body is a management body’s decision-making and thus, the subject of legal relationship is the subject of management body’s decision-making, the resolution can remove the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status’s risks or apprehensions as to the Plaintiff’s legal status. The confirmation judgment against an individual manager who is not a management body cannot be effective with the management body, and thus, the lawsuit seeking such confirmation judgment is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30676, 30683, Oct. 28, 2010). Thus, seeking confirmation of the absence of a manager status against Defendant B, who is not a management body of this case’s building of this case, is invalid as it does not immediately affect the judgment of the management body.
3. Defendant.