1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. Basic facts

A. Under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”), the Plaintiff is a management body established to manage the part of the commercial building among the main complex building A (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). The Defendant is a sectional owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the third floor C of the instant commercial building on May 19, 2005 (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”).

B. According to the Plaintiff’s management rules, management expenses shall be calculated in accordance with the calculation method, including personnel expenses, electricity charges, water supply and sewerage expenses, business management expenses, repair expenses, annual ordinary expenses, long-term repair expenses, long-term repair appropriations, fire insurance premiums, etc., which are incurred on the basis of one month, and the following month shall be imposed and collected. The method of calculating the management expenses for the section for exclusive use shall be based on the performance of individual use, and the management expenses for the section for common use shall be allocated according to the unit area (Article 40(3)), and when the sectional owner, etc. fails to pay the management expenses imposed by the due date, the late payment charges shall be added by 2% per month, and the cumulative amount shall not exceed 20% per annum (Article 42), and in the case of the non-occupant shop, it shall be determined that the exemption from the management expenses may not be requested due to

§ 44(c).

With respect to the instant family room, KRW 15,279,190,00 was incurred as the management fee and late payment charge for common areas from December 2, 2014 to September 2017, as shown in the attached Table, as to the management fee and late payment charge for common areas.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff claimed management expenses for the section for exclusive use as well as the section for common use, even though the plaintiff was a factory laboratory, or that some sectional owners who were the officers of the plaintiff management body had calculated the defendant unfairly excessive management expenses instead of giving preference to some sectional owners. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is behind the fact of recognition and the defendant's management expenses are the same.