1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by C.

1. Basic facts

A. A market is a main complex building with the 1st underground and the 6th ground level in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”), which is currently being used as a commercial building from the 1st underground to the 4th ground level, and the 5th and 6th ground level as an apartment building.

B. E Co., Ltd. succeeded to the market establishment status under the Wholesale and Retail Trade Promotion Act from F Co., Ltd. in around 1989, and has collected management expenses from the occupants of the instant building.

C. On October 7, 1994, E Co., Ltd. was subject to the revocation of market establishment permission by the head of Gangdong-gu Office on the ground that “the normal operation of the market is prohibited.” On April 25, 2007, G Co., Ltd. (the representative director: the Defendant) transferred the right to manage the instant building.

On July 6, 2014, some sectional owners of the instant building constituted a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”) and elected H as the representative and enacted the management rules. On September 29, 2014, the inaugural general meeting was opened to approve the items such as “the ratification of management rules, the formation of the council of occupants’ representatives and the appointment of general operating members of the council, the determination of management expenses, the bearing of expenses, etc.” (hereinafter “the resolution of September 29, 2014”).

E. G and E Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the E Residential Representative Council (the name of the Plaintiff is different from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is claiming the instant lawsuit on the premise that it is the same organization; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution made on September 29, 2014 (this court 2016Gahap3025). This court obtained the consent of at least 3/4 of the sectional owners and voting rights in accordance with the Multi-Family Building Act, as well as the ratification portion of the resolution made on September 15, 2017, on September 29, 2017. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the part of ratification of the management rules in accordance with the Multi-Family Building Act is considerably significant to 99 sectional owners and voting rights (i.e., 131 x 3/4).