1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Even if there is a defect in the resolution of the board of directors dated May 3, 2016 (hereinafter “the first board of directors”) seeking confirmation of invalidation by the Plaintiff, insofar as the Defendant ratified the resolution of the first board of directors at the board of directors of April 29, 2017 (hereinafter “the second board of directors”), seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the first board of directors of this case is unlawful as it seeks confirmation of past legal relations.

B. 1) In a case where the management body meeting of the management body established under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings approves or re-satisfys the previous resolution at the management body meeting re-satisfys after the resolution for the appointment of an officer was adopted, barring special circumstances such as where the resolution at the management body meeting re-satisfys the original resolution even if the original resolution for the appointment of an officer is null and void, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the previous resolution for the appointment of an officer does not meet the requirements for protection of rights since it is merely seeking confirmation of the past legal relations or legal relations, barring special circumstances such as where the resolution at the management body meeting re-satisfys the original resolution for the appointment of an officer, even if the original resolution for the appointment of an officer is null and void, it cannot be deemed as an independent ground for invalidation in principle. If the new resolution is deemed null and void, it would lead to confusion in legal relations and undermine legal stability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da3632984, Jan. 29, 29208).