1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a lessee who resides in the B apartment located in G (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant is the council of lessees’ representatives of the instant apartment complex constituted pursuant to Article 50(1) of the Special Act on Public Housing and Article 52 of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing.

B. On December 21, 2018, based on the election of representatives by buildings implemented from December 15, 2018 to December 20, 2018, the Defendant elected the C (Class 1: I, Jdong), D (Class 2: K, Ldong, E (M-N Dong: 7: M-N Dong), and F (O-P Dong) as representatives by buildings.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant election resolution,” and collectively referred to as “C, etc.”). / [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

Lawsuits for confirmation are allowed in cases where there is a benefit to immediately determine the current rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute, unless there are other special circumstances. In general, past legal relations cannot be subject to litigation for confirmation.

(Supreme Court Decision 94Da3565 Decided May 10, 1996). However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 7 in the evidence No. 7, the Defendant decided to invalidate the election of representatives for each Dong in the 8 constituency through a meeting of the election commission on January 18, 2019, and decided to invalidate the election of representatives for each Dong in the 1,7 constituency after the meeting of the election commission on June 4, 2019, and on June 4, 2019, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the representative of the 1,7 constituency was resigned from the office of representative, and further, the Defendant was elected as the representative of each Dong (the Plaintiff was elected as the representative of each Dong in the 7 constituency) after the election was invalidated or resigned from the office of representatives by each Dong, and following the re-election procedure.