1. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the defendant is a sectional owner who was sold in lots from the association of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer from the association of this case, and was entitled to pay the management expenses for the section for common use from February of 2001 to January of 2009 on the ground that the defendant was liable to pay the management expenses, and the late payment fees, etc. based on the facts set out in its reasoning.

In other words, although the association of this case has the obligation to sell a store that can be registered and operated to the defendant, it only made an invalid registration on each of the stores of this case and did not deliver a store that can be operated.

The Defendant expressed to the instant partnership the intention to cancel the instant sales contract on the ground of the foregoing nonperformance, and the declaration of intention reached the instant partnership, and the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, the plaintiff argued that the defendant is liable to pay management expenses as the sectional owner of each of the stores of this case because the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant was made, but the defendant asserted that the contract for the sale of this case was cancelled, and the defendant argued that the contract for the sale of this case was cancelled, the plaintiff also argued that the defendant is liable to pay management expenses as the possessor in addition to that he is liable to pay management expenses as the sectional owner on December 1, 201 stated at the fourth date

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is the possessor in addition to the claim that the defendant is liable to pay management expenses as the sectional owner of each of the stores of this case.