1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit;

1. We examine ex officio whether the counterclaim of this case is legitimate or not.

The Defendant, as a counterclaim, seeks confirmation that the Plaintiff Company was not a management body or a sectional owner under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means for the defendant to receive a judgment of confirmation against the defendant, in order to eliminate the danger and apprehension of present in the plaintiff's rights or legal status and in danger.

In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation is likely to cause unstable legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and again, he/she is a person who asserts conflicting interests with the plaintiff's legal interests and interests in confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). The whole purport of the plaintiff's claim in this case is that "Public Health Unit and the plaintiff's representative director, etc. hold an inaugural general meeting on Nov. 11, 201, and establish the "Unincorporated A Commercial Building" and appointed D as the manager of the commercial building in this case on the same day. On the other hand, some sectional owners, such as D, etc. invested in the company and established the plaintiff company on Jan. 11, 2012, and thereafter, the administrator D concluded an entrustment management contract with the plaintiff company, and they do not assert that the plaintiff company itself itself is the management body of the commercial building in this case.

In addition, the plaintiff company claims that the representative director D is the owner of the commercial building in this case, and the plaintiff company itself is the owner of the commercial building in this case.