1. We dismiss the part of the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Defendant is not in the Plaintiff’s position.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. A in the Guri-si, Guri-si (hereinafter “instant building”) is an aggregate building consisting of 100 sectional ownership buildings consisting of a total of 15 floors above the 2nd ground level below the ground level.

B. Around April 7, 2005, all sectional owners of the instant building (39 persons) held a management body meeting to elect D as the president (manager). A resolution was adopted to enact the management rules, while determining the management methods of the instant building as autonomous management.

C. Since then, an occupant emergency response committee (hereinafter “instant emergency response committee”) consisting of occupants ( tenants) residing in the instant building was organized, and the Defendant was elected as the representative of the instant emergency response committee.

From around 2006, the Defendant performed the management work of the building of this case.

On August 10, 2013, the sectional owners of the instant building held a management body meeting to enact and amend the management rules of the instant building, and the overall duties of managing the instant building shall be performed by the management body in accordance with the regulations, and D shall be elected as the manager of the management body and the chairperson of the management body.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 35, 36, 37 (including provisional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the absence of the status of the managing director against the defendant ex officio.

Lawsuits for confirmation shall be allowed where there is a benefit to immediately determine the current rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute.

In the case of a claim for performance, it is unlawful to seek confirmation of the existence of the performance obligation separately in the case of a claim for performance, since it is not more effective and appropriate in light of the litigation economy, since there is no legal interest

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da6757 delivered on July 23, 1991, etc.). The Plaintiff is prohibited from managing the Defendant, separate from the above confirmation claim.