1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

claim, purport of claim,

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a claim on May 3, 2018 by Suwon District Court 2018, for the confirmation of invalidity of the instant election that was confirmed as the elected person by the committee for the management of apartment buildings of this case (hereinafter “Defendant Prior to the Plaintiff”) by Suwon District Court 1196, and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 22, 2019.

B. On October 24, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed to the Suwon High Court 2019Na70 (the case subject to a retrial). On October 24, 2019, the said court rendered a decision subject to a retrial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal, which was served on the Plaintiff on the same day.

(c)

On February 6, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the non-existence of the hearing under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal of Supreme Court.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) of Article 451(1)5 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the grounds for re-examination under Article 451(1)5 and 6 of the same Act) ① The Plaintiff filed an application for witness against G, D, M, N, etc. during the process of the lawsuit subject to re-examination, but the court dismissed the application for witness, thereby hindering the submission of means of attack and defense that may affect

② On April 23, 2018, which served as the basis for the judgment subject to a review, the minutes of the Defendant’s Prior to the trial (Evidence A No. 2) are forged documents, which were prepared by a false M without authority to prepare the minutes, even though the meeting, such as the contents thereof, was not held or resolved.

2) Determination A) Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a person makes a confession, or is obstructed in submitting a means of offence or defense that may affect the judgment, due to another person’s act subject to criminal punishment,” and Article 451(1)6 of the same Act provides that “when a document or other article used as evidence for the judgment has been forged or altered.”