1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

3. The intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the Intervenor’s completion of the Intervenor’s application for intervention by succession between the three-party 7 and eight-party 8 of the first instance judgment, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance judgment. As such, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of

C. On July 23, 2018, when the intervenor was pending in the instant lawsuit, the intervenor obtained a provisional seizure and a collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) from the Seoul Central District Court 2018TTTTB to KRW 5,737,458,865, out of the amount of the claims that the plaintiff would receive from the defendant under the instant judgment, and issued a provisional seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”). On October 23, 2018, the intervenor served the Defendant, who is the garnishee, and became final and conclusive around that time, pursuant to the instant seizure and collection order on October 25, 2018, the intervenor succeeded to the right to collect the judgment amount that the plaintiff would have received from the defendant (hereinafter “instant judgment amount claims”) by the instant judgment, and filed an application for intervention in the instant court (hereinafter “application for intervention”).

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s main defenseal Plaintiff entered into an entrusted management agreement with the Defendant on the instant building and entrusted with the management of the instant building by the Defendant. Since the entrusted management agreement itself was already terminated on October 31, 2016, prior to the closing of the argument in the first instance trial, the Defendant could not directly file a judicial claim against the Defendant, who is the sectional owner of the instant building, for the payment of unpaid management fees.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is inappropriate due to its lack of standing as a party, and the judgment of the first instance does not dismiss it, and further, the Defendant is obliged to pay the delinquent management expenses and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.