1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the second order”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance in the corresponding part, “Defendant F” is deemed to be “Defendant C”, and “Defendant G” is both deemed to be “Defendant D”.

The 4th to 13th of the first instance judgment are as follows.

C. 1) The Plaintiff concluded a water supply contract with the Seoul Metropolitan Government Waterworks Headquarters (hereinafter “Water Service Headquarters”) for the entire building of this case, and the water service headquarters claims the Plaintiff to pay the water rate for the entire building of this case in the manner that the Plaintiff pays the water rate for the entire building of this case in lump sum.

2) Although the Plaintiff did not install individual water meters per heading room of the instant building, the Plaintiff installed individual water meters for each heading room of the instant building. However, around July 2014, each heading room of the first to the second floor of the ground, used for restaurant, etc. with a particularly high water use volume, installed individual water meters for each heading room of the first to the second floor of the ground, and around that time, the Plaintiff claims water charges for each heading room with an individual water meter installed with an individual water meter from that time, calculated at the rate of KRW 2,00 per square meter of the water use volume separately from the management expenses. See the first instance judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff did not dispute (based on recognition), Gap 1, 4, and 10, Eul 2, Eul 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

In the fifth fifth of the judgment of the first instance, the "creditor" is regarded as the "Water Service Headquarters, which is the creditor of the water rate."

The 6th to 10th of the first instance judgment are as follows.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff, a management body of the building of this case, is the main office of water services and the entire building of this case on behalf of the sectional owners of the building of this case.