beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning the conjunctive claim shall be reversed, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed.
(b) the primary claim;
Reasons
1. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the main claim. A.
The standing to sue in a lawsuit filed by a third party is against a third party who asserts that he/she has a right to prevent transfer or delivery of the object of compulsory execution, and the third party here refers to a person other than those indicated as a creditor, debtor or his/her successor on the title or execution clause.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da10883, Oct. 27, 1992). Whether the debtor of the execution is the debtor of the execution clause is determined by whether the execution clause was granted to anyone, and even a person who is not the debtor of the execution clause, such as a person who has no identity with the debtor of the execution title, but has not been the debtor of the execution clause, if the execution clause was granted to him, the debtor of the execution clause is the debtor of the execution according to the execution clause until the execution clause
B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.
(1) On May 14, 2008, the A management body (former name was the “A Management Representative Meeting; hereinafter “the instant management body”) asserting that it is the managing body of the A Management Body of the A Management Complex building (hereinafter “the instant condominium building”) held an assembly to elect a manager required to act as a management body (hereinafter “legal management body”) meeting the requirements of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings with respect to the instant condominium building (hereinafter “the Act”), and at that assembly, C was elected as the representative of the management body of this case.
However, in the case of the provisional disposition No. 2009Kahap545 on May 15, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court determined that the above assembly was not effective as the assembly of the legal management body of the aggregate building of this case and C did not have the authority to represent the legal management body of the aggregate building of this case.
(2) The Defendants are the Defendants on December 10, 208.