1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought payment of unpaid management expenses of KRW 7,704,300 for the unpaid management expenses of KRW 7,389,50 for the period from April 2008 to May 2014, and KRW 519,80 for the unpaid management expenses of KRW 519,80 for the period from December 263 to March 2012, 201, and KRW 59,200 for the unpaid management expenses of KRW 23,632,70 for the unpaid management expenses of KRW 23,70 for the period from April 208 to May 2014. The first instance court dismissed the claim for late payment.

The scope of this Court's appeal is limited to the claim for unpaid management expenses.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a party to the collective building A located in the Nowon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant condominium building”).

(ii) the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) for the management and operation of sites and buildings;

A) Pursuant to the management body consisting of all sectional owners, the management of the instant aggregate building and the management fees have been imposed and collected on the occupants. 2) The Defendant is a sectional owner who owns the 49 to 51, 263 square meters of the 3rd floor of the instant aggregate building (3.92 square meters of each transition area, 3.327 square meters of each transition area), respectively.

(hereinafter “each of the instant stores”). (b)

Plaintiff

D, one of the sectional owners of the instant aggregate buildings, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking return of unjust enrichment by asserting that the amount of management expenses imposed and collected in accordance with the Plaintiff’s management agreement is not reasonable (the repayment of unjust enrichment by Incheon District Court Decision 2010Kadan39712). The court determined that the Plaintiff’s management agreement was null and void on the ground that the Plaintiff’s management agreement did not obtain the consent of more than 4/5 of the sectional owners as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 41(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act.

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal (In Incheon District Court 2013Na6254) and appeal (2014Da72197).