1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the election.

2. The plaintiff's defendants.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) Defendant B of the E Apartment Seniors Association (hereinafter “instant Seniors Association”); (b) partially the elderly persons aged 65 years or older who reside in the E apartment, were unfairly restricted from joining the instant committee; (c) on September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff announced the election of the chairperson of the instant Seniors Association on September 24, 2016 (hereinafter “instant election”); (b) carried out the instant election procedure without organizing an election commission; and (c) Defendant D, a director of the instant Seniors Association, issued ballot papers already posted to the voting authority on the election day; and (d) claimed that the instant election that was elected as the chairperson of the instant Seniors Association was invalid; and (e) sought confirmation and re-election against the Defendants.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the claim for nullification of an election

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized only when the plaintiff's right or legal status is currently unstable and dangerous, and removing such apprehension and danger is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 197). Even if the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the election of this case against the defendants is accepted, the judgment's effect cannot be deemed to affect the senior citizens' meeting of this case. Accordingly, the above claim part cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to resolve disputes between the parties on the validity of the election of this case.

B. Therefore, the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant election among the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s request for re-election against the Defendants

(a) Domins, Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12, respectively, and arguments;