1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the '1. Basic Facts' part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the main defense of Defendant B and C

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion does not fall under the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”), the Plaintiff is not a party to the claim against the Defendants for the closure of each individual entrance set forth in No. A. 106 and C. 106 of the instant building (hereinafter “instant entrance”) and for the removal of agricultural products display stand (hereinafter “instant display stand”). Even if the Plaintiff is a management body of the instant building under the Aggregate Buildings Act, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is unlawful as it was filed without a lawful resolution of the management body meeting.

Even if the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case as a management body of the building of this case through a resolution of the management body meeting, the plaintiff's representative is not an administrator appointed through a resolution of the management body meeting pursuant to Article 24 of the Aggregate Buildings Act or a resolution of the management body committee. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is

B. In a lawsuit for performance of judgment, the standing to sue is determined by the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, and the Plaintiff does not have to be the actual right to demand performance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful is merely an assertion on the closure of the entrance of this case and the existence of the right to claim the removal of the display standdown, which is the subject of the review on the merits.

Therefore, the eligibility for parties is relevant.