1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. B apartment located outside Seoul and seven lots (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) consists of apartment d-E Dong 580 households, F-24 households, and B-dong 28 households, which are composed of 632 apartment buildings. At present, reconstruction is underway after removal, and the defendant is the council of occupants’ representatives of the above B-dong.

B. From May 1997 to April 201, 2014, the Plaintiff resided in the Bag (hereinafter “instant Ba”) from among the instant apartment units, and the said Ba owner is H, the Plaintiff’s wife.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion on the Defendant’s representative

A. The plaintiff's gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is not the plaintiff's representative, and the plaintiff is not the defendant's representative, and the defendant is not the defendant's representative. In addition, the defendant is dissolved and the liquidator was not appointed, so the defendant's representative I is not the defendant's legitimate representative.

B. According to the records of Gap evidence No. 16, the defendant's representative I reported the closure of business on October 25, 2017 is recognized.

However, even if a non-corporate company caused a cause for dissolution, it is not immediately extinguished, but it becomes the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of the purpose of liquidation until the liquidation work is completed, and in this case, the non-corporate company in the process of liquidation is an association identical to the non-corporate company in the process of liquidation before it is dissolved, but its purpose has not been reduced to the scope of liquidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41297, Nov. 16, 2007). Furthermore, the Plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of a special representative with the Defendant in relation to the instant lawsuit as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2018Kaman817, but (1) Article 20 of the apartment management rules of the instant case only provide the grounds for dismissal and dismissal of the representatives for each Dong, and as a matter of course, lose the status of the occupant, etc. as the representative of each Dong.