beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff and the defendant did not have the status of CA as the administrator of the defendant.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff is a sectional owner who owns B16 and six commercial buildings among B shopping districts located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). The Defendant is a management body established pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings by consisting of sectional owners of the instant commercial buildings.
While the Defendant’s manager is not appointed, 21 sectional owners, including C, of the instant commercial building, on April 17, 2012: (a) decided to convene a temporary management body meeting pursuant to Article 33(4) of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (wholly amended by Act No. 11555, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”); (b) upon delegation from the said 21 person, C was delegated by the said 21 person; and (c) on April 27, 2012, “the 20 other sectional owners” in the name of “the 18:00 Seoul Jongno-gu E-building 11st floor to convene a temporary management body meeting; and (c) held a temporary management body meeting on May 8, 2012 (hereinafter “instant meeting”); and (d) held a resolution of the Defendant’s appointment as the manager of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant resolution”).
The defendant's rules have not been enacted until now. [The defendant's judgment as to Gap's 1, 4, 5, 6 evidence, Gap's 10 evidence, Eul's 4, 10 evidence, and Eul's 4 to 10 evidence, the whole pleadings, and the purport of the safety defense of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff has filed various lawsuits to straw the commercial building of this case, and continuously caused confusion. The plaintiff's absence of the status of administrator C is not a way to resolve such dispute, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case does not have a benefit of confirmation.
However, it should be viewed that there is a dispute as to whether C is a custodian of the defendant, and the interest in confirmation is recognized. Such a lawsuit result is always a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.