1. To dismiss a request for confirmation of the validity of the agenda of the written resolution in 2010 added at the trial of the party;

2. The plaintiff's appeal is filed.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a management body comprised of sectional owners of A shopping mall located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”). C is a person appointed as the Plaintiff’s manager at the inaugural general meeting of July 22, 2006 (hereinafter “instant inaugural general meeting”) pursuant to Article 24 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.

On June 24, 2007, the Plaintiff ratified the resolution of the inaugural general meeting of this case that appointed C as a custodian at the extraordinary general meeting of this case (hereinafter “special meeting of 2007”) and re-appointed C as a custodian. Around August 2010, the Plaintiff ratified the said inaugural general meeting and the special meeting of June 24, 2007, appointed C as a custodian at the written resolution of 2010 (hereinafter “written resolution of 2010”), and re-appointed C as a custodian.

(2) The Defendant, as a sectional owner of the instant building No. 1050 and No. 6024, was obligated to pay monthly membership fees in accordance with the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation and management rules, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 10,639,605, while denying the validity of the Plaintiff’s resolution, such as the inaugural general meeting, and did not pay monthly membership fees and late payment fees in accordance with the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation and management rules. As such, the Defendant sought confirmation of the validity of the written resolution in 2010, and sought payment of overdue membership fees and late payment damages.

2. We examine ex officio whether the instant additional claim is lawful, namely, whether there is a benefit to verify the validity of the agenda resolved by a written resolution in 2010, ex officio, on the determination of the legitimacy of the instant additional claim.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is disputed between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and accordingly, the plaintiff's rights or laws.