1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking confirmation that the Defendant is not in the position of the representative and president of the D Apartment.

1. The basic facts are those who were the chairman of the election commission of the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives at the 14th period of Goyang-gu, Yongsan-gu (hereinafter "the apartment in this case"). Plaintiff B is the same representative of the 14th period of the apartment in this case, and the defendant is the 12th period of the apartment in this case and the 13th period of the council of occupants' representatives.

2. On February 3, 2017, the part of the plaintiffs seeking confirmation of the absence of the representative of the apartment building and the president of the apartment building of this case stated the purport of this part in the application for correction of the purport of the claim, stating that “the defendant does not have the current D apartment unit representative and president at all,” but its purport is to seek confirmation that the defendant is not in the status of the representative of the apartment unit of this case and the president of the apartment unit of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs are

The defendant asserts that the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation that the defendant is not in the representative of the apartment building of this case and the president of the apartment building of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

In this case, the defendant does not dispute the current status of the representative of the apartment building and the president of the apartment building of this case, and in case the defendant files a lawsuit against the representative or the individual of the non-corporate body in the confirmation lawsuit on the status of the representative or the member, the judgment citing the claim is issued.

Even if the judgment cannot be effective to the relevant organization, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate way to resolve the dispute between the parties surrounding the status of the representative or members. Thus, a claim against the representative or an individual of a member without the organization is not an interest in confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da10155, Feb. 16, 2015). Thus, the defendant's individual who is not the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case cannot be the same representative.