1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 30% is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts in the summary of the case are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 15, 19, 20, 21 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence No. 8.

A. An aggregate building consisting of neighborhood living facilities and viewing and assembly facilities in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant is a management body established to manage the instant building, its site, and its appurtenant facilities.

B. The Plaintiff leased No. 202 of the instant building and operated a restaurant, who was the former president of the Defendant.

C. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant held a general meeting and passed a resolution to appoint C as the chairperson of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

On October 30, 2014, some of the members of the defendant, including the plaintiff, were convened by the general assembly on October 30, 2014, to dissolve the organization of the existing prosperity association, form a new prosperity association, and pass a resolution to elect new officers.

2. Determination on the benefit of protection of rights

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant resolution that appointed C as the Defendant’s president is null and void due to various substantive and procedural defects, and further, C loses the Defendant’s status as the Defendant’s president by dissolution of the previous conference organization through the resolution of October 30, 2014, and sought a judgment such as the purport of the claim.

B. In a case where the management body meeting re-satisfys the previous resolution or re-satisfys the re-satisfys the resolution, barring special circumstances, such as where the resolution of the management body meeting re-satisfys the original resolution after the resolution of appointment of an officer was adopted, barring special circumstances such as where the resolution of the management body meeting re-satisfys the invalidity of the initial resolution of appointment of an officer, it is merely an seeking confirmation