1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a management body established with all sectional owners as members under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”) to manage the land and its affiliated facilities located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and the building site and its affiliated facilities. The Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the said commercial building, who is the Defendant’s member.

B. On March 17, 2014, the Defendant publicly announced and announced the agenda items, such as the date, time, place, and the case of appointment of executive officers, with respect to the holding of the 11st meeting of the shopping mall management body, and notified the registration of candidates for executive officers. On April 26, 2014, at the meeting of the management body held on April 26, 2014, the Defendant passed a resolution on the agenda items delegated to the representative committee on the compilation of the budget, three vice-chairpersons including the chairperson D,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant resolution”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The defendant's defense prior to the merits is disputed to the purport that at the time of the resolution of this case, the plaintiff was not a sectional owner of the above commercial building at the time of the resolution of this case, and therefore there is no standing to seek confirmation of nullity. However, in full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 9, the plaintiff was a sectional owner of the 12th floor No. 12-22 and 12-23 at the time of the resolution of this case, and the plaintiff can be acknowledged as a sectional owner of the 3th floor No. 3-32 at the time of the resolution

3. The plaintiff asserts that the resolution of this case is null and void as it goes against the quorum provision of the management body's bylaws, so long as the resolution of this case was made by approximately 350 persons among the 978 persons holding a sectional ownership and only less than a majority.

In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 8, and No. 2, the Defendant’s appearance of 195, among the 986 persons holding a commercial building at the time of the above assembly.