1. The defendant's assistant intervenor's motion to intervene shall be dismissed;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 148,047,927 and 37,671 among the Plaintiff.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff is a facility controlled entity.

The defendant is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the 7th underground floor and the 23th lock-si building located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

The defendant assistant intervenor is the sectional owner of the building of this case.

B. From January 22, 2016 to May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff provided management services for the instant building.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the service cost on January 2016, but did not pay the remainder of the service cost.

2. If a person intends to participate in an action to assist a party in a specific litigation case that determines the legitimacy of a request for intervention, he/she shall have an interest in the result of the action;

The term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not a de facto, economic or emotional interest, which refers to a case in which res judicata or executory power of the judgment of the lawsuit is naturally granted, or where the legal status of the person who intends to participate in the lawsuit is determined, at least on the premise of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da225809 Decided June 22, 2017, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156 Decided April 26, 2007, etc.). The defendant’s assistant intervenor does not constitute a case where the defendant’s assistant intervenor naturally receives res judicata effect or executory power of the instant judgment.

In addition, there is no evidence to recognize that the supplementary intervenor's legal status is determined on the premise of the judgment of this case.

The application for intervention in the instant case is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for participation.

3. Determination as to the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 7, it is recognized that the service cost for February 2016 (Claims No. 37,671,586, the service cost for March (Claims No. 1, 2016), 37,258,064, the service cost for April (Claims No. 29, April 29, 2016) was 37,41,734, and the service cost for May (Claims No. 35, 2016) was 35,706,543.