1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On November 20, 2017, the defendant held a council of occupants' representatives and passed a resolution to select the comprehensive light management of the existing controlled entity as an entrusted management entity by private contract.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant resolution”). In order to conclude a negotiated contract with an apartment controlled entity, the forms prescribed in Article 5(2) and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act shall be distributed to occupants and there shall be no written objection to a certain percentage of the multi-family housing management rules.

Nevertheless, since the defendant did not observe the above procedure and made a resolution of this case to enter into a negotiated contract with the existing controlled entity, it is null and void, and the plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the invalidity as the tenant of B apartment.

In a lawsuit for confirmation of legal principles pertaining to the lawfulness of the lawsuit of this case, not only the legal relations between the parties, but also the legal relations between one party and the third party or between the third party, may be the subject of the lawsuit.

However, in order to have the interest to confirm such a legal relationship, ① there is a danger risk existing in the claimant’s rights or legal status according to the legal relationship, ② there is a need to immediately confirm by the confirmation judgment for the confirmation of the legal relationship in order to eliminate the risk, ③ it must be the most effective and appropriate means.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da9463 Decided April 29, 2005). The council of occupants’ representatives of multi-family housing constitutes an unincorporated association consisting of representatives of buildings elected in proportion to the number of households by buildings.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da6307, Jun. 15, 2007). In this case, the Plaintiff’s first tenant cannot be said to have a specific legal interest in the controlled entity’s selection resolution.

In other words, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff is the apartment B.