1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an organization composed of its occupants for the management of the apartment of this case.

B. On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for correction with the director of the Namyang District Tax Office to change E as a representative of the Defendant’s identification number to the Plaintiff, and the director of the Namyang District Tax Office rejected the application for correction on the ground that “A dispute over the qualification of representative exists between E and the Plaintiff, and it cannot be corrected because it is not confirmed as a legitimate representative through the final judgment, etc. of the court.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 17, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. E was elected as the representative of the instant apartment building No. 12 and elected as the chairperson of the Defendant, but four years have not passed since he was dismissed from the representative of the instant apartment building No. 10, and there was no qualification as the representative of each building under the relevant statutes.

On June 2014, the apartment election commission of this case decided the invalidity of the representative qualification of E by Dong, and the majority of the apartment residents of this case decided the dissolution of the representative meeting by Dong 12, while consenting to the above qualification invalidation decision.

On the other hand, E was finally decided to waive its claim even in litigation, such as confirmation of the representative status of E filed against the Defendant.

B. On June 24, 2014 through a special election conducted thereafter, P was elected as the chairperson of the defendant, and the plaintiff was elected as the representative of the 13th apartment of this case, which was implemented at the expiration of the term of office of the representative of the 12th apartment of this case, as the representative of the 706 unit apartment of this case and was elected as the chairperson of the defendant

C. However, E still contests the status of the plaintiff by asserting it is the defendant's representative, and E is registered in the identification number certificate of the apartment of this case as the defendant's representative.