1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's request for correction of the party indication is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain the cited part of this case are as follows: “A evidence Nos. 1 shall be stated only in the evidence Nos. 1, 8, and 9 (including a provisional number)” in the second 20th of the judgment of the court of first instance; and it shall be cited in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for an additional determination as set forth below No. 2.1. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional decision (Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion)

A. On October 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the correction of a party indication with the representative C as the president H by asserting that the representative of the Plaintiff was changed on March 28, 2016. However, it is insufficient to recognize that H was elected as the representative through a lawful process in accordance with the business building management rules in this case, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s application for the correction of a party indication is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the judgment of the court of first instance dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the ground that C does not have the right to represent the plaintiff, since he/she is entitled to claim performance as the plaintiff in his/her lawsuit for performance.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to sue of a person who asserts himself/herself as the person responsible for performance has standing to sue and the person asserted as the person responsible for performance has standing to sue, so the standing to sue of a party shall be based on the plaintiff's argument itself

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994, etc.). However, in a case where a non-corporate body is a party, whether a representative has legitimate power of representation or not belongs to the court’s ex officio investigation as to the requirements for litigation. As seen earlier, C is not entitled to the Plaintiff’s representative, the instant lawsuit filed by C as the Plaintiff’s representative is unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion.