1. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C, the part on July 9, 2016 demanding confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the withdrawal of a custodian and the Defendant.

Basic Facts

The defendant Btel management body (hereinafter "the defendant management body") is a management body under Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Act") composed of all sectional owners of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Btel (hereinafter "the instant officetel"), and the plaintiff is a sectional owner of the instant officetel.

Defendant C was elected as a manager at the management body meeting on May 31, 2014 by Defendant C’s management body, and its term of office was terminated on June 15, 2016.

In the temporary management body meeting of the defendant management body held on July 9, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant meeting”), a resolution to re-elect the defendant C as the manager (hereinafter referred to as the “instant resolution”) was adopted at the resolution to elect the defendant C as the manager.

[Ground of recognition] The defendant C asserts that there is no interest in confirmation as to the plaintiff's finding of the main defense against the defendant C as to the main defense of the safety at issue, the entry of Gap evidence 5, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the main defense of the safety at issue.

As a decision-making of an organization, legal relations arising therefrom belong to the organization. Thus, only upon receiving a confirmation judgment on the existence or validity of a resolution made by an organization against the organization, the resolution can remove risks or apprehensions in relation to the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in a valid fashion. A confirmation judgment rendered against an individual, not an organization, does not affect the organization’s validity, and thus, there is no benefit of immediate confirmation. Thus, a lawsuit seeking such confirmation judgment is unlawful.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da14058, Jun. 25, 1991; 2010Da30676, 30683, Oct. 28, 2010). Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the withdrawal of a custodian against Defendant C is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

As to this, the plaintiff is the defendant C and the defendant management body.