1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs, following the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24307, Jan. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 24307, Dec. 31, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20154, Jan. 1, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Dec. 31, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Jan. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Dec. 31, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 24307, Jan. 9, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24307; Presidential Decree No. 24307, Dec. 24, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24307; Presidential Decree No. 24307, Jan. 9, 2013).

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized only where the defendant is the most effective means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 1997). In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity or non-existence of an executive status of a certain organization, if a lawsuit is filed against the executive, even though the judgment accepting the claim is issued, it cannot be fundamentally resolved a dispute between the parties surrounding the executive status because the judgment does not affect the organization, and thus, it cannot be recognized as the benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da5433, Aug. 13, 1991). Since the council of occupants' representatives of multi-family housing is a non-corporate representative elected in proportion to the number of households of each building, seeking confirmation of invalidity or non-existence of a member's eligibility is ultimately asserted, and thus, the council of occupants' representatives, as the actual subject of the dispute, has a standing to bring a lawsuit against the defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 9 September 2008