1. The defendant confirms that a resolution stated in the attached Table at the ordinary meeting of the ordinary shareholders on February 17, 2014 is null and void.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The parties concerned are the management body of the “C”, which is an aggregate building located in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”), and the Plaintiff A is the owner of 304 (Partitioned Building) among the instant aggregate buildings, and Plaintiff B is the owner of the instant aggregate building 904 (Partitioned Building) among the instant aggregate buildings.

B. On February 17, 2014, the resolution of the 2014 general meeting of the Defendant prosperity passed a resolution on February 17, 2014 on the resolution of the 2014 general meeting (hereinafter “instant resolution”) and made a resolution on the attached list (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main defense of the defendant prosperity;

A. On the grounds of this safety objection, the Defendant Association asserted that the instant resolution was defective in the method of resolution, by asserting that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the quorum or the number of satisfaction of the resolution, and that the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation that the instant resolution is null and void is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Defects in a method of resolution shall be made only by an action for revocation of resolution pursuant to Article 42-2 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings").

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case against the defendant prosperity is not a means to effectively resolve the dispute, and therefore there is no interest in confirmation.

② 피고 번영회의 대의원회는 2015. 4. 23. 반사유리 및 하이샷시 창문 설치공사에 관한 공사대금 상당액 30,708,000원 중 1,200만 원을 이 사건 집합건물 중 4호 라인 구분소유자 8명이 각 150만 원씩 부담하는 것으로 재결의하였다.

Therefore, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution is seeking confirmation of the past legal relationship, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. Judgment of this Court 1.