1. The defendant confirms that the resolution stated in the attached list at the ordinary meeting of the ordinary shareholders on January 19, 2015 is null and void.

2...

Basic Facts

The defendant is a management body composed of sectional owners of the building Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter "the building in this case"), and the plaintiff is a sectional owner of the fifth, sixth, fifth, seventh, fifth, fifth, fifth, fifth, fifth, seventh, fifth, fifth, seventh, and eighth.

The defendant held a general meeting on January 19, 2015, and the above general meeting passed a resolution on the agenda in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of this case").

Part III (Responsibilities of Officers) Article 21 (Responsibilities of Officers) of the Management Council of the Management Body (Responsibilities of Officers) (3) Where it is deemed necessary for the execution of specific duties to executive officers of the Council, a certain amount of money may be paid as business operating expenses or sales expenses by

(4) The chairperson shall be paid 300,000 won per month at the market price.

The contents of the management rules for the amendment of June 11, 2012 by the Defendant prior to the instant resolution are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 1-5 to 7, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5-5, and the plaintiff's argument purport of the whole pleadings, the resolution of this case was not satisfied, and the resolution of this case did not meet the quorum for modification of the rules. Thus, the defect is so serious that it is not effective.

Regardless of the validity of the resolution of this case concerning Article 21(4) of the Management Rules as to the main part of the main part of the judgment on the main part of the safety defense, the executive may pay the sales fund only by the resolution of the board of representatives pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Management Rules, so there is no benefit to seek confirmation on the invalidity of the resolution

A lawsuit for revocation of a resolution pursuant to Article 42-2 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings") is merely an action for revocation of resolution, and a lawsuit for confirmation of nullity may not be brought.

The defendant does not dispute the invalidity of the resolution of this case, and on December 2012.