1. All appeals filed by the Intervenor against the Defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor.

1. The following facts in the course of general process to the trial of the political party are either of the parties to dispute or of the record:

On March 10, 2014, pursuant to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution against the Defendant, a management body established with all sectional owners of the building B in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) by asserting that “The Defendant’s resolution on appointment of the Chairperson, Auditor, and Directors (hereinafter “instant resolution”) was made at the ordinary general meeting of shareholders on February 27, 2014, as stated in the purport of the claim.” The instant resolution did not consider the number of sectional owners present at the general meeting of shareholders and calculated only a majority of voting rights.”

B. As to this, the Defendant (N at that time) led to a confession of all the Plaintiff’s allegation to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s claim and the cause of the claim are fully recognized” through the written response from April 1, 2014, stated on the date of the first instance trial.

C. On the other hand, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) submitted an application for intervention on April 24, 2014, and raised a dispute as to the above facts of the Plaintiff’s assertion, along with the assertion that “The Intervenor’s intervention in the supplementary intervenor’s assistance is a co-litigation, and the Defendant cannot make a confession of the Plaintiff’s assertion without the consent of the supplementary intervenor, as it is the supplementary intervenor’s participation in the co-litigation is a co-litigation’s intervention on May 14, 2014.”

On May 29, 2014, the first instance court on the ground that “this case’s judgment is effective only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it does not directly affect the Intervenor, so the Intervenor’s application for intervention in co-litigation is illegal, but is valid only as an ordinary supplementary participation.”