The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

According to the evidence No. 4-1, No. 2, 3, and 6, the Defendant, C, and D Co., Ltd. concluded a provisional contract for construction works on June 28, 2013, and Article 42(1) of the Act provides that “The “income from sale, etc.” deposited under Article 41, even if the amount of construction work exceeds the amount of construction work as of the date of deposit, shall be appropriated first to the repayment of construction expenses until the amount reaches the total construction amount to be paid to “B” (C and D Co., Ltd.; hereinafter the same shall apply)”, and the balance shall be repaid in the order of interest, interest, interest, non-interest, and other expenses.” The Defendant, at the extraordinary general meeting on October 26, 2013, is recognized as a resolution of this case with the consent of 354 members present at the meeting with the consent of 304 and 304 members present at the meeting (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

The Plaintiff asserts that the method of repayment of funds under Article 42(1) of the above provisional contract was modified disadvantageous to the Defendant’s union members compared to the method of repayment of funds set forth at the special meeting for the selection of a contractor on February 2, 2013. Thus, in order to make a resolution of ratification of Article 42(1) of the above provisional contract, Article 20(3) and 20(1)15 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents should apply mutatis mutandis to the resolution of ratification of Article 42(1) of the above provisional contract and the consent of at least 2/3 of the union members should be obtained.

A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is in danger, and a judgment of confirmation is rendered at the time of fundamental and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54024, Sept. 17, 199). In addition, since the lawsuit for confirmation requires that the object of confirmation is the current right or legal relationship, it is required that it be the subject of confirmation.