관리인지위부존재확인등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "(i)" is added to the end of the 7th 12th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th
2. Additional parts
A. On the 8th end of the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that as long as the requirements for convening an extraordinary general meeting should be determined at the time of convening the meeting, it cannot be deemed that there was any defect that the Plaintiff received a later delegation or written consent, and that at least L, M,O, P, and Q did not have a request for convening an extraordinary general meeting of this case.
However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the above L, M, P, and Q prepared a power of attorney to delegate their authority to attend and resolve the general meeting prior to the opening of the instant special meeting, and the aboveO may directly attend the instant special meeting and recognize the fact of exercising voting rights. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.
In addition, the issue of whether a valid request for convocation depends on the true will of each sectional owner, not on the basis of whether the consent or power of delegation has been prepared, but on the basis of whether a specific form of document, such as a letter of consent or power of delegation, has been prepared ex post facto, as alleged by the plaintiff.