1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The business building B in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant business building”) is an aggregate building consisting of a divided store that is the object of several divided ownership.

B. The designated parties and C, including the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) A, are the sectional owners of the instant commercial building.

C. On June 1, 2012, the Defendant notified the sectional owners of the instant commercial building of convening a management body meeting. On June 11, 2012, the Defendant held a management body meeting and resolved to appoint C as a manager and D as an auditor (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

On October 13, 2014, when the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution was pending, the Defendant held a temporary management body meeting of the instant commercial building on October 13, 2014, appointed C as the manager of the instant commercial building on the first agenda from the said meeting as the first agenda, re-entered the instant resolution on the second agenda, and made a resolution to appoint Swip C as the auditor on the third agenda.

(hereinafter the resolution on the second agenda is referred to as "the resolution on the second agenda of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 15, 36-45 (including the whole number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the judgment on the defendant's defense of double lawsuit is the same as the part on the defendant's main defense of the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of "the judgment on the defendant's main defense". Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

3. Determination as to the existence of interest in confirmation

A. The defendant asserted that the resolution of this case was made by the defendant after the resolution of this case. Since the plaintiff's seeking confirmation of nullity of the resolution of this case is about past legal relations, the lawsuit of this case does not have a benefit of confirmation.

On this issue, the Plaintiff’s resolution of re-authorization of this case.