1. To dismiss a request for confirmation of the validity of the agenda of the written resolution in 2010 added at the trial of the party;

2.(a)

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. C (the representative D; hereinafter the “executive C”) is an executor of the business of newly building and selling A shopping mall (hereinafter the “instant commercial building”) which is an aggregate building of 5 underground and 12 underground floors above Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul.

The Defendant is a sectional owner of the first floor of the instant commercial building (7.43m2) and the second floor of 2176m2 (3.96m2).

B. The total number of stores of the instant commercial building is 1613 and 874 of them are currently sold, and the remaining 739 of them were not sold.

C. On July 22, 2006, the Plaintiff is an organization established by 675 of the total number of buyers, including C, who were held at its inaugural general meeting held in the third floor of the 3rd class lecture of the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, 136-56.

The Defendant becomes a member of the Plaintiff by preparing and submitting to the above inaugural general meeting a written consent stating that “I will agree to the preparation of the bylaws of the Commercial Building Operation Committee, the composition of the organization, the election of officers, and all matters resolved by the general meeting, such as the filing of lawsuits and supervision against the Si event and the management company, which constitute the purpose of restoring the status and property rights of the buyers, and revitalizing the commercial building (hereinafter “the first written consent of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant additional claim is legitimate, namely, the benefit of confirmation.

As a result of the instant additional claim, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the agenda (e.g., the enactment of the management rules, the election of executives, and the re-alivation) resolved by the written resolution against the sectional owners in August 2010 as the management body (the operating body) of the instant commercial building is valid.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there should be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights.