2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

A. 1) Status of the parties to the collective building C (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

The management body shall follow the management rules with the consent of at least 3/4 of both sectional owners and voting rights (hereinafter “instant management rules”).

(2) The management rules of this case set forth that “The management rules of this case set up a representative committee with the representative members appointed by each zone to deliberate and decide on important matters concerning the management body affairs (Article 30 and 31). The president of the management body meeting was the president of the representative committee (Article 24). In relation to the appointment and efficient management of the manager, the Plaintiff, who is the implementer of the new project, is appointed as the first manager of C. The management contract following the appointment of the manager, shall be entered into between the representative committee and the manager.” (Article 40) and “the manager shall perform duties concerning the imposition, collection, deposit, and use of management expenses (Article 42).” (2) On March 13, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract between the representative committee of the management body of the building of this case and the representative committee of the management body of this case to be entrusted with the management of the building of this case (hereinafter “management contract of this case”).

3) On November 15, 2011, the Defendant No. 036 on the 8th floor among the instant buildings (hereinafter “instant store”).

B) On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 11,918,070 in total management expenses from April 10, 2009 to April 10, 2013 regarding the instant store and KRW 10,240 in arrears expenses (Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Da37525).

2. The filing of the lawsuit by the plaintiff is lawful, but it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff has a duty to succeed to the late payment charge of the former owner, and the management fee up to April 2010 shall be extinctive prescription.