The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2018, the Defendant, as the representative of the Plaintiff, entered into a contract under which the Plaintiff entered into a contract with A (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) to set the period for construction of equal-heat repair and reconstruction construction of A apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) from June 11, 2018 to November 10, 2018, the construction amount of construction amount of KRW 625 million (excluding value-added tax) and two years from the date of completion inspection for the period of warranty liability.

(hereinafter “instant First Contract”). (b)

On June 20, 2018, the Defendant, as the representative of the Plaintiff, concluded a contract under which the Plaintiff, from June 21, 2018 to July 10, 2018, entered into a sub-counciling company, with the period of cleaning the external glass hold of the instant apartment (excluding value-added tax) as KRW 15 million of the contract amount (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant secondary contract”). On July 31, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 16.5 million out of the Plaintiff’s reserve fund account under the instant secondary contract.

C. On October 8, 2018, the Defendant, as the representative of the Plaintiff, concluded a contract under which the Plaintiff entered into a sub-counciling company with the construction period set at KRW 24 million of the construction cost (excluding value-added tax) from October 8, 2018 to October 14, 2018, for the instant apartment parking lot siren repair and other construction works.

(hereinafter referred to as the “third Contract of this case”). . [Ground for recognition] . (U.S.) without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant, who was the chairperson of the plaintiff's claim, did not demand the repair of defects to the non-party company before completion of the construction project under the contract of this case, and concluded the contract of this case with the contract of this case which overlaps with the contract of this case and caused the plaintiff to make unnecessary expenditures.

In addition, according to the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, the head of the management office should conclude the contract of this case.

Nevertheless, the defendant directly concluded the second contract of this case in violation of the above provision.

In addition, since the contract of this case is about the exclusive part of the apartment of this case, it is subject to the management rules of this case.