1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a sectional owner of B located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D (hereinafter “instant commercial building B”). 94

On August 13, 2015, the temporary management body meeting of the instant commercial building B was held. At that meeting, a resolution was made to confirm the appointment of C, the sectional owners of the instant commercial building B B, as the manager of the instant commercial building B.

However, the above provisional management body meeting resolution violates the procedures stipulated in the Aggregate Buildings Act, etc. in the convocation procedure, the quorum, the proceedings of proceedings, and the exercise of voting rights, and is unfair to obstruct the exercise of the plaintiff's voting rights.

Therefore, on August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff primarily sought confirmation of invalidity of the resolution that confirmed C as the custodian of the instant commercial building B at the temporary management body meeting of the Plaintiff, and sought revocation of the resolution.

B. Since the instant temporary management body meeting was held on November 4, 2016, and there was a new resolution to appoint E as the custodian of the instant commercial building B, the instant lawsuit disputing the validity of the resolution ratified by the temporary management body meeting on August 13, 2015 to appoint C as the custodian of the instant commercial building B is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

2. In a case where the management body meeting of the management body established under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings approves the previous resolution or re-elections at the management body meeting held again after the resolution for appointment of an officer was passed, barring special circumstances such as the invalidity of the original resolution for appointment of an officer even if the resolution for appointment of an officer was invalid, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the previous resolution for appointment of an officer is merely seeking confirmation of legal relations or legal relationship in the past, and thus lacks the requirements for protection of rights.