beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following dismissals or additions, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2.In addition, the following shall be added to the third page 10 of the judgment of the first instance.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense
A. The gist of the defendant's assertion: First, the defendant led the resolution of each general meeting of this case and the formation of the management body of the defendant. The plaintiff's motion to confirm the invalidity of each general meeting of this case through the lawsuit of this case is contradictory to the trust in accordance with the preceding act, and thus, it should be dismissed without any qualification for protection of rights in violation of the principle of good faith. Second, even if there is a defect in each general meeting of this case, the defect was confirmed from the sectional owner through management such as the collection of management fees of the management body of the defendant, so the defect was cured. Thus, the lawsuit of this
B. Determination 1) The principle of trust and good faith under the Civil Act is an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise a right or perform a duty by any content or method that violates the principle of trust and good faith, taking into account the other party’s interest, and thus, in order to deny the exercise of such right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, a new one has been provided to the other party, or the other party has a good faith in an objective view, and the other party’s exercise of right against the other party’s good faith has to reach an extent that it is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da53490, May 15, 2001, etc.).