1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

purport.

1. The reason why the court has used this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 of the 10th page " was withdrawn," and the term of office is up to April 5, 2016.

On January 2, 2017, following the 4th 12th 12th , “The occupants of the apartment of this case held an election of executive officers for the Dong representative and the chairperson, etc., and accordingly E was elected as Dong representative, and F was elected as the chairperson of the defendant.”

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s main safety defense was the representative of the 6th council of occupants’ representatives and the chairman of the instant apartment, but its term of office had already expired.

On January 2017, occupants of the apartment in this case have elected executive officers for the representative of the 7th council of occupants' representatives and the chairperson, and completed all the reports on the formation of the council of occupants' representatives to the office of Nam-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. If an executive officer of a certain organization is dismissed by a resolution of the general meeting before the expiration of his/her term of office and was appointed as an executive officer at the new general meeting, barring special circumstances, such as where the resolution of the new general meeting is a procedural defect other than that of the general meeting convened by an unentitled person, the absence or invalidation is recognized due to a defect in the contents, or where the resolution is revoked, it would be reasonable to seek confirmation of the absence or invalidity of the resolution even if the resolution of dismissal is null and void, which would result in the lack of the requirement of protecting rights as a lawsuit seeking confirmation

Supreme Court Decision 96Da24309 Decided October 11, 1996 and Supreme Court Decision 28 May 28, 2009