beta
Text
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
The plaintiff asserts that the resolution on each agenda listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of this case") made by Chhy's joint council on December 5, 2013 at the Chy's joint council (hereinafter referred to as "the resolution of this case") was invalid because (i) the majority of the registered members did not attend and failed to meet the quorum; (ii) the quorum was not satisfied; (iii) the voting did not go through the regular voting procedure; and (iv) the procedural defect, such as the notice of convening a general assembly under the Civil Act, was found to exist, and thus, the
The Defendant’s assertion of this case as to this safety defense is seeking confirmation of invalidity of the previous resolution of the Joint Council for the past for which six years have already passed, and the present legal relationship is not at present unstable, but at the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk of uncertainty of invalidity, and the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant on the premise that the resolution of this case was valid in the previous civil case [the District Court 2015Gahap1151 (principal suit), 2015Gahap5042 (Counterclaim)]. The claim of this case is contrary to the principle of good faith.
Judgment
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant in order to eliminate the risks of the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and therefore, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation has a benefit of confirmation against the defendant, who is likely to cause unstable and danger in the plaintiff's legal status by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations.
(Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997). However, even if the resolution of this case was adopted by the Clock and was based on the plaintiff's assertion itself, the defendant is merely the operator of the Elock, and the defendant is merely the defendant.