A. The Defendant is an incorporated association established for the purpose of promoting the common interests of B commercial buildings in Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) and various projects concerning the prosperity and development of commercial buildings. On August 1, 2003, the Plaintiff is a person who leased No. 301 of the instant commercial buildings and operated a restaurant in the trade name “D”.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff, a member of the Defendant, did not pay KRW 900,00 for advertising expenses and operating fees and KRW 77,693 according to the management rules of the Commercial Building Operation Association from June 2013 to March 2014, and filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the said money against the Plaintiff on November 10, 2014 with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Gau96118, which claimed the payment of the said money.

C. On December 15, 2014, the Defendant (the Plaintiff in this case) rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) to pay 97,693 won and 900,000 won to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff in this case) at the rate of 18% per annum from April 1, 2014 to the date of delivery of a written complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”). The decision on performance recommendation of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2014 and became final and conclusive as is January 6, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Grounds for the claim;

A. The Plaintiff did not have a duty to join the Defendant’s membership, and the Plaintiff did not actually join the Defendant’s membership.

The defendant did not have legitimate authority to receive the management expenses of the commercial building of this case and did not advertise for the plaintiff who moved in the commercial building of this case.

Furthermore, there is no reason for the Plaintiff to be responsible for advertising and operating fees from June 2013 to July 2013, the Plaintiff located before the same year.

(b) a claim objection is raised because there is no res judicata effect on the decision of performance recommendation that became final and conclusive.