손해배상(기)
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is rendered.
1. The first instance court, among the principal suit against the Defendant, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation that there is no obligation equivalent to the ratio of the size of the correction of the collection of this case and the pipe part among the unpaid management expenses owed to the Defendant’s section of exclusive ownership. The first instance court, among the principal suit against the Defendant, rendered a judgment citing part of the counterclaim claim seeking unpaid management expenses against the Plaintiff, which partially accepted the claim for damages due to the tort by the subdivision of this case, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the management expenses, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment due to the illegal act by the subdivision of this case, and the claim for return
Therefore, it is clear that only the defendant appealed the part against the principal lawsuit. As such, the scope of judgment of this court shall be limited to the plaintiff's claim for damages caused by the illegal act of the suspension of the instant case, which is the part against the defendant among the principal lawsuit, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to management expenses, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to illegal possession of the part of the collection of the instant
2. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is with the exception of adding "before the plaintiff loses ownership of the part of exclusive use in this case until the defendant loses possession of the part of the collection and pipeline installation" to each of the 6th, 16th, 22th, 5, 6 and 31th, 6 and 7th, of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "after the defendant loses possession of the part of the collection and pipeline installation" to each of the 27th, 13th, and 13th (the defendant did not submit the grounds for appeal to this court, and even after submitting the preparatory documents and the application for the resumption of pleading submitted after the closing of argument, the scope of the automatic claim as offset is about 20% of the aggregate of the management expenses from February 2, 2005 to February 2, 2008, and it did not submit any data specifying the amount of the management expenses for common use area)."