1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Presumed facts

A. The Plaintiff and C are the co-owner of the Daejeon Seosung-gu B shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

B. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the suspension of the performance of duties and the provisional disposition of the appointment of an acting director with respect to E, who is the shop occupants of the instant shopping district, as the Defendant’s president ( Daejeon District Court 2014Kahap251), and the instant court rendered a provisional disposition to suspend the performance of duties of E and appoint the attorney F as the acting representative.

C. After that, on April 27, 2015, an attorney G was replaced with the defendant’s acting representative by the decision of April 27, 2015 regarding the application for provisional disposition, but the above acting representative was dismissed from the office of acting representative by the decision of July 28, 2015, on the ground that the order for prepayment issued by this court is not complied with properly.

C At the Defendant’s extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) held on July 31, 2015, the Defendant’s Speaker pro tempore was elected as the Defendant’s Speaker pro tempore by a resolution of the full number of 14 incumbent members and the full number of present members.

E. On August 19, 2015, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the instant court rendered a decision to suspend the performance of duties of the Defendant’s representative until the instant judgment became final and conclusive, and appoint a lawyer as the acting representative of the Defendant’s representative.

(The Daejeon District Court 2015Kahap207). 【Ground of Recognition】 Facts without any dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the benefit of protection of rights

A. The parties’ assertion that “the assembly of this case is null and void as convened by C without the authority to convene the general assembly,” and the Defendant, “the Defendant,” lawfully held a general assembly on April 14, 2016, and elected C as the Defendant’s representative. As such, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general assembly of this case is for seeking confirmation of the past legal relationship or legal relationship. Therefore, there is no benefit of confirmation.