On July 24, 2018, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance against the defendant is to appoint C as a manager at the management body meeting.

1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance [the corresponding part of “1. Basic Facts”]. Thus, this part of the basic facts, including abbreviations, is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(However, the judgment on the Defendant’s main defense as follows: (a) the Defendant’s management body is the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant’s “Defendant C” is the “C”; and (c) the Defendant’s main defense against safety.

A. After the management body meeting of the instant case’s assertion, the Defendant held a temporary management body meeting on November 1, 2019 and passed a resolution to appoint C as a manager (hereinafter “the second resolution”).

Therefore, there is no interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case that the plaintiff appointed C, which is merely a mere legal relationship in the past as a custodian.

B. In the lawsuit for confirmation of relevant legal principles, the subject of confirmation is the current rights or legal relations. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the existence of past rights or legal relations is not recognized.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for protection of rights or legal relationship, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err in misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da53419, Apr. 11, 1995; 201Da69220, Jan. 27, 2012).

Judgment

According to the statement of Eul's evidence 47 inherent 54, a temporary management body meeting consisting of 63 persons holding the instant officetels on or around October 2019, under the premise that 63 persons holding the instant officetels consent to the appointment of managers, etc.