1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff, which orders payment, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the procedures for reporting a large-scale store manager to the head of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 4, 2013 under the former Distribution Industry Development Act regarding the shopping mall of this case, which is a 7th underground and 16th ground building located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”), and processes the collection of management fees in the capacity of a large store manager around that time.

B. The defendant is the owner of the fourth E of the shopping mall of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the store of this case").

(c)

The Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 1,795,500 (i.e., management expenses and arrears of KRW 1,429,270 for unpaid management expenses) incurred from January 2014 to May 2016 (i.e., late payment charges of KRW 366,230 for unpaid management expenses).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 to 32 evidence (including various numbers in the case with a number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, who is the sectional owner of the instant store, shall, barring special circumstances, resist the Plaintiff who is authorized to collect management expenses as a large store manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act on the shopping mall of this case and KRW 1,429,270 from February 18, 2017 following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order as requested by the Plaintiff as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform.

Until February 9, 2021, which is the day of this decision, the Civil Act is obligated to pay delayed damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s argument as to illegal closure is that the Plaintiff controls access to the fourth floor where the instant store is located and suspends the supply of electricity against the intent of the sectional owner in the process of promoting collective salesroom occupants on the fourth, sixth, and seventh floor of the shopping mall of this case.