[2] In a case where Gap corporation sought confirmation of the status of the successful bidder according to the method of selecting the successful bidder against Eul's council of occupants' representatives, the case holding that in light of all circumstances, the bidding procedure and the subject of the decision of the successful bidder, and Eul's apartment security service contract cannot be viewed as Byung corporation, which is the legal effect of the head of management office, and therefore, the lawsuit of the above confirmation cannot be seen as the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute

[2] In a case where Gap corporation sought confirmation against Eul's council of occupants' representatives that the status of the successful bidder according to the method of selecting the successful bidder against Eul's council of occupants' representatives is against Eul, the case holding that although Eul's judgment is effective only between Eul and Eul, and Eul's council of occupants' representatives cannot be seen as the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, since Eul's lawsuit for the above confirmation cannot be seen as the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, since it is merely an internal involvement or supervision in the process of selecting the successful bidder, although Eul's council of occupants' representatives was involved or supervised in the process of selecting the successful bidder, it cannot be viewed as the party to the bid procedure and the decision of the successful bidder, or the party to the security service contract against Eul's council of occupants' representatives, who is not the party to the bid procedure and the decision of the successful bidder or the party to the security service contract.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant, on November 29, 2010, announced the notice of the selection of security service company as prescribed by Article 10-01, and confirmed that the status of the successful bidder according to the method of determining the successful bidder as publicly announced by the tender of the security service company on December 13, 2010 is the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “1. Basic Facts” and “a summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion” are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's main defense

The public announcement for the selection of a security service provider of the apartment of this case, the subject of the bid procedures and the decision of the successful bidder, or the party to the security service contract, are not the defendant, but the defendant, and the defendant, who entered into a multi-family housing entrustment management contract with the defendant, entrusted the apartment (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-family housing"), so the lawsuit of this case filed against the defendant, who is not the party to the decision of the successful bidder, or the party to the contract of security service, is unlawful

B. Determination

1) In addition to the legal relations between the parties, the legal relations between one of the parties and a third party or between third parties may be the object of a lawsuit for false confirmation. However, in order to have the interest of confirmation of the legal relations, the legal relations are likely to exist in the rights or legal status of the claimant according to the legal relations. In order to eliminate the risks or omissions, it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relations by the confirmation judgment aimed at confirming the legal relations, and it must be the most effective and appropriate means (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da9463, Apr. 29, 2005).

2) However, considering the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10, each of the above statements, which can be seen as the whole purport of pleadings, ① The apartment of this case was entrusted by small network management entity rather than the autonomous management method, but the non-party, who is its employee, is the head of the management office of the apartment of this case. ② The non-party, who is the head of the management office of the Housing Management Service and Business Selection Guidelines (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2010-445, July 6, 2010), and Article 15 subparag. 2 of the Housing Management and Business Selection Guidelines (No. 4, which is the head of the management office of the above multi-family housing, provides that the non-party's representative of the management office and the head of the management office of the above multi-family housing (the non-party's representative of the management office of the apartment of this case's 2000.

However, as seen earlier based on the facts, the Defendant was actually involved in the selection of mobilization green park as a successful bidder by holding a meeting with eight representatives present at the meeting. However, this is merely limited to the Defendant’s involvement or supervision in the process of the selection of the guard service company of the instant apartment complex as a “internal” and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant becomes the party to the bid procedure and the decision of the successful bidder, or the said guard service contract.

3) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserted that the Soft Public Service, the managing body, was entrusted by the Defendant with the bid process, the determination of successful bidder, and the conclusion of the above security service contract. As such, the legal effect of the so-called so-called the Defendant is attributable to the Defendant. However, as seen earlier, the so-called so-called so-called so-called the so-called so-called so-called “Unauthorized Public Service” did not perform the affairs delegated by the Defendant as an agent, etc. as alleged by the Plaintiff, but rather performed the bid process and the determination of successful bidder, which falls under the original affairs, while performing the duties of the so-called “independent Public Service,” as a party to the contract, which is a “independent” with the consent

4) As a result, even if the Plaintiff won the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the status of the successful bidder against the Defendant, who is not the subject of the bid process and the decision of the successful bidder, or the party to the above security service contract, the judgment’s effect is limited to only the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it cannot be said that it extends to the third party public interest. As such, the lawsuit for confirmation of the instant case cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute.

5) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, and the Defendant’s main defense pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it shall be dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges private-public officials (Presiding Judge)

1) The subject matter of this guideline is as follows. 2. Where the management entity (referring to the head of a management office of multi-family housing; hereinafter the same shall apply) selects a service and construction business entity or selects a construction business entity to perform long-term repair works with the fixed repair reserve for expenses, cleaning, disinfection, elevator maintenance, maintenance of intelligent home network, maintenance of repair and maintenance, purchase and sale of goods, etc.

2) The managing body of Article 15 (Public Notice of Tender) (in cases of selecting a construction business operator to directly repair defects with a security deposit for repairing defects, referring to the council of occupants' representatives; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall determine the matters to be referred to a competitive tender within 14 days prior to the scheduled date of tender and publicly announce them in any of the following media