1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the claim for the main counterclaim in this case and the court of this case.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the decision of the officer elected by the council of lessees’ representatives. The Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking return of documents by the Defendant, and the court of first instance accepted both the principal claim and the counterclaim claim.

Accordingly, since only the plaintiff appealed against the part of the counterclaim, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the counterclaim claim.

2. The reasons for the acceptance and alteration of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the 10th through 13th of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasons for the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is

“3. Determination of the counterclaim is made ex officio with respect to the primary counterclaim and the preliminary counterclaim additionally added by this court. C is clear in record that the fact that the council of lessees’ representatives consisting of the winnings of the floor representative by the instant election was elected as the chairperson of the Defendant, and that C has filed the instant counterclaim on behalf of the Defendant in the capacity of the chairperson of the Defendant. However, as seen earlier, the decision of the winnings of this case and the announcement of the election are null and void due to serious defects in the procedure. Since the resolution by the winnings of the above floor representative by organizing the council of lessees’ representatives and selecting C as the chairperson is invalid, C is not entitled to represent the Defendant. Accordingly, the instant counterclaim is raised by a person who has no representative authority, and is unlawful;

3. Conclusion, the primary and conjunctive claims in the instant case shall be dismissed in entirety as unlawful.

Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the counterclaim is unfair based on its conclusion, it is revoked and all of the primary counterclaim claim of this case and the preliminary counterclaim claim added by this court.