All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Plaintiff’s assertion

The manager of the management body of H is the plaintiff, and the entrusted corporation of the building is the representative I Co., Ltd. (the former trade name: M Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as "I"), but the defendant B, C is the joint management of the J Co., Ltd., the defendant D is the K manager, and the defendant E is the L manager of the H Co., Ltd., and performs the duties of the manager, such as the imposition of management expenses, collection

The appointment of a custodian by the Defendants is null and void as a matter of course, and the Defendants failed to comply with the duty report and settlement report under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Aggregate Buildings Act”), and thus, the custodian and the suspension of duty are sought against the Defendants.

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

The Plaintiff appears to have prepared and submitted a written appointment of the president and the parties in the name of the Appointer H management body. The only written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is insufficient to deem the Plaintiff as the manager of the H management body of the Appointer selected through lawful procedures. Rather, according to the records, the Plaintiff was appointed as the temporary manager of the H management body on February 1, 2020 by Seoul Northern District Court No. 2019 non-conforming104.

Therefore, the selection made by the plaintiff, not a legitimate representative of the H management body, is illegal. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case as the designated party even though there was no legitimate selection act of the H management body, and the part of the H management body of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

Plaintiff

A lawsuit of formation for the purpose of changing or forming the existing legal relationship between the Appointor I may be brought only in cases where the law expressly provides for the purpose of establishing the existing legal relationship.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45020, Jan. 16, 2001). A lawsuit seeking suspension of a custodian’s duties constitutes a lawsuit seeking formation of the nature of the claim.