1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

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

The plaintiff is the owner of B apartment 101 Dong 1101, but the plaintiff could not move into the above apartment until now due to the exercise of the right of retention for the construction of the above apartment, so the defendant, who is the council of occupants' representatives of the above apartment, did not have the obligation of paying the management expenses, and sought confirmation

However, the existence of litigation requirements must be determined based on the date of closing argument in the fact-finding court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5932 Decided July 28, 2006). However, in the instant case, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for an order of payment (this Court Decision 2017Da7398 Decided August 10, 2017) seeking the payment of management expenses of KRW 1,325,00, which is the sum of management expenses indicated in the purport of the claim and management expenses imposed thereafter (this Court Decision 2017Da326), which is the aggregate of management expenses imposed upon the Plaintiff, against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed an objection to the said payment order and filed a lawsuit under this Court Decision 2017Da7398, August 10, 207. Accordingly, the fact that the appellate court is still pending

As a plaintiff, it can be argued that the defendant does not have a claim against the plaintiff by seeking a ruling of dismissal of the claim in the above lawsuit.

When the principal lawsuit has been withdrawn, the Defendant may withdraw the counterclaim without the Plaintiff’s consent (Article 271 of the Civil Procedure Act). Accordingly, in the event that a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of an obligation is requested to be “Counterclaim” after the filing of the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of an obligation, the benefits of confirmation as to the “principal lawsuit” may still be recognized. However, in the event that the Defendant claims performance as “a separate lawsuit”, even if the Defendant withdraws the lawsuit in a “a separate lawsuit,” the Plaintiff may obtain a judgment of res

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be viewed as a benefit of confirmation any longer.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246, Jul. 24, 2001). Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is unlawful.