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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

A. The Defendant is a sectional owner of the building C among the building A of Daejeon Pungdong-gu (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The management expenses provision of the management rules concerning the building of this case (hereinafter “management rules of this case”) are as follows:

Article 28 (Management Expenses) (1) Any sectional owner or possessor shall pay management expenses incurred in the maintenance and management of an aggregate building to a management body.

(5) An occupant shall be jointly and severally liable with sectional owners for management expenses incurred during the period of occupation.

(7) The overdue rate of management expenses shall be 5% in one month, and 1.5% in addition to the overdue rate for each month after two months.

C. As to the instant building, KRW 4,450,080,000 was not paid, as shown in the attached sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is seeking unpaid management expenses and late payment fees for the building of this case, such as the annexed sheet.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that, among the amount claimed by the plaintiff, the unpaid management expenses from August 201 to September 2014 should be borne by the lessee D of the building of this case. ② The defendant's management expenses to be borne by the plaintiff are half of the normal management expenses because the building of this case was not leased to a third party because the plaintiff failed to fulfill its responsibility for management while the building of this case

B. Determination 1) In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that Eul leased the building of this case from the defendant on June 30, 2008 can be acknowledged. However, as seen earlier, the defendant, who is the owner of the building of this case pursuant to Article 28(5) of the instant management rules, is jointly and severally liable to pay management fees during the period of possession of the building of this case with D. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.