청구이의
1. The original order of the Defendant’s payment order for the service costs in Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2009j3702 against the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged pursuant to the purport of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 8, and Eul evidence 1 and the whole pleadings:
A The Mayor is Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the Seoul and D ground neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "instant commercial buildings"), and the plaintiff is a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings comprised of sectional owners of the instant commercial buildings.
B. E was appointed as a manager at the Plaintiff’s management body meeting held on December 12, 2008. Meanwhile, the Defendant entered into a management services contract with E on September 22, 2008 and performed the management services.
C. The Defendant filed a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of unpaid service costs from October 2008 to May 2009. This court issued a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 229,97,159 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment, and KRW 127,600, which is the cost of demand procedure (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was served to the Plaintiff on July 30, 2009, and the said payment order became final and conclusive August 14, 2009 because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection.
F was appointed as the representative of the Plaintiff’s management body meeting held on November 27, 2009, and the name of the management body was changed to “A market management management committee”, and G was appointed as the representative of the Plaintiff’s management body meeting held on May 31, 2012.
2. The parties' assertion
A. On September 22, 2008, before the Plaintiff’s assertion E was elected as the Plaintiff’s representative, the Defendant concluded a management services contract with E, and the Defendant did not have the management authority over the instant commercial building, and the Defendant did not refund the service cost for the instant commercial building with E.