Pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the Plaintiff is a management body comprised of all sectional owners of the building A of the 7th floor above the 2nd floor above the 7th floor above the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant is the owner of the 5th floor to the 7th floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant bath”) and is conducting public bath business, such as private bath, at that place.

On December 15, 2015, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant public bath on the grounds of the sale of the instant public bath due to the voluntary auction commenced on the basis of the right to collateral security established at the instant public bath, but lost the ownership of the instant public bath due to the sale by compulsory auction on April 20, 2018.

The building of this case was completed on March 31, 2004, and the five to seven floors were used as a public bath facility, and the attached drawings indicating 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 208.26 square meters in part (A) of the ship connecting each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 7, and 208.26 square meters in part (hereinafter “the boiler room of this case”) in part (a) of the ship connected each point of 1, 204, has been used as a boiler room of a

The boiler room of this case is the section for partial common use provided for public use only for the sectional owners of the fifth and seventh floors of the building in this case.

The total area of the instant building is 9,734.49 square meters; the area of the exclusive ownership of the instant bath is 2,593.44 square meters; and the section for common use of the fifth and seventh floors of the instant building where the instant bath is located is 1,523.97 square meters.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the defendant's assertion as to the whole purport of the pleading as to the defense of the principal safety, is exchanging the plaintiff's claim for management expenses that are not identical to the claim for delivery, removal, and return of unjust enrichment.