1. All of the lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine, ex officio, whether each of the instant lawsuits is legitimate or not.

The Plaintiff asserted that the management body composed of sectional owners of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) was duly appointed as the management body from the extraordinary general meeting held on November 16, 201, and sought a judgment from the Plaintiff against the Defendant, who is the temporary manager B, to confirm that the Plaintiff was appointed as the management body and the Defendant was dismissed from the temporary manager.

On the other hand, a lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the parties, but can be the object of the legal relationship between one of the parties and a third party or between the third parties. However, in order to have the interest to confirm the legal relationship, there should be a danger draft existing in the rights or legal status of the claimant according to the legal relationship. In order to eliminate the risk draft, it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by the confirmation judgment covering the legal relationship, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means. In addition, the other party who denies his rights or legal status claims the rights or legal relations against a third party that cannot be compatible with his own assertion and seeks confirmation of the existence of the other party's rights or legal relations against the third party. Thus, even if the other party who denies his own rights or legal status becomes a favorable judgment in the lawsuit for confirmation, it cannot be a means to resolve the existing apprehension in his rights or legal status, and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation of the absence of such rights or legal status cannot become an appropriate means to confirm the other party's claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5970 Decided August 23, 2007, etc.).