2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an organization established by consisting of the merchants of the second floor store in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) and is the owner of the second floor C of the instant shopping mall (hereinafter “Defendant shop”).

B. For the management of the shopping mall in this case, ① a props association consisting of land owners and building owners, and ② a merchants association on each floor consisting of shop occupants.

C. The management rules of the commercial building of this case have the following provisions.

The Defendant paid management expenses to the Plaintiff from September 2013 to May 2014.

The details of management fees imposed by the Plaintiff are electricity, water supply, general management, cleaning management fees, operating fees, and E/S repair and maintenance fees.

E. The Defendant store is a factory room from November 201.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Records of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was delegated with the authority to impose and collect management expenses for the second floor shop occupants pursuant to the management rules, and the management expenses for the public shop has been imposed and collected from the owner.

As shown in the attached Form, the Defendant unpaid KRW 8,298,000 in total of the management expenses from June 2014 to July 2018.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 8,298,00 and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was delegated with the authority to impose and collect management expenses for the second floor shop occupants and did not have such authority for the owner, and since the authority to impose and collect management expenses for the owner of a shop who is a public room is against the props' meeting, standing to sue is not recognized.

The defendant store did not have the charge of heating and cooling electricity because it was a factory, and the defendant requested the plaintiff to remove the obstacles in front of the defendant store.