1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

2...

1. Claim against the defendant company

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a council of occupants' representatives comprised of the occupants of "A", an aggregate building located in Namyang-si and E, and the defendant company is a lessee of the 4th floor F and G stores of the above building (hereinafter "the above store"). The management expenses for the store of this case from August to November 2016, 2015 to 15,717,930 can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, the defendant company is the employer who leases and uses the store of this case, and is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 15,717,930 as the management fee for the store of this case and the damages for delay.

B. As to the judgment on the defense of the defendant company, the defendant company asserts that the defendant company offsets the damage claim of KRW 6,248,043, which the defendant company holds against the plaintiff by the amount equal to the plaintiff's management expenses claim.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant company has the damage claim of KRW 6,248,043 against the plaintiff (except for the case of investigating outside the court, documentary evidence shall be present at the date of pleading or preparation procedure and shall be actually submitted, and the same shall apply to the case where the complaint or preparation document attached with documentary evidence is stated (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da15775, Nov. 8, 1991). The defendant company attached to the court of first instance a final and conclusive judgment (Korean District Court Decision 2014Na9763, May 28, 2018) to the effect that the above written reply recognizes the damage claim of the above written reply. However, since the defendant company failed to appear on the date of pleading until the court of first instance, it cannot be admitted as evidence, and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence).