beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The litigation costs are assessed against C who is represented by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is a management body A in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu, an aggregate building, and that part of the above building and site is occupied and used without permission, and seek collection of facilities such as the purport of the claim, delivery of the site, and return of unjust enrichment.
On behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant raises a defense to the effect that C does not have the right to represent the plaintiff.
2. Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that “If a sectional ownership relationship with respect to a building is established with respect to a legitimate manager of a management body, a management body shall be established with the aim of carrying out the business relating to the management of the building, site and attached facilities by all sectional owners as well as the building and its appurtenant facilities.” Article 24(1) of the same Act provides that “if the sectional owners are ten or more persons, the management body shall represent the management body and the manager to execute the business of the management body shall be appointed.” Article 24(3) of the same Act provides that “The manager shall be appointed or dismissed by a resolution of the management body meeting,” and Article 24(3) of the same Act provides that “The manager shall be appointed or dismissed by a resolution of the management body pursuant to the regulations
A person who files a lawsuit on behalf of an association which is not a juristic person has the power of representation as a litigation requirement, but the court's ex officio investigation matters as a litigation requirement, but the burden of proof of the litigation requirement
(3) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendants 1 and 2 were appointed as managers by a resolution of the management committee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da39301, Jul. 25, 1997). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership and management of aggregate buildings, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
Gap 2, 3, 4, 8, 9.