1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff has the same legal nature as the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which was established by all sectional owners as a management body with respect to Adong (the subject of sectional ownership of 165 and the second and fourth underground floor; hereinafter “instant commercial building”) located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D as a member of sectional owners.

B. On January 30, 2015, Defendant B entered into a labor contract with Defendant C with the terms of the contract period from February 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015, under the Plaintiff’s manager’s qualification as the Plaintiff’s agent, with the terms of employment as the managing director of the instant commercial building, and concluded a labor contract with the said term of contract extending the contract period to June 30, 2017 as the same qualification (hereinafter “instant labor contract”).

C. Defendant B, who signed the instant employment contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, concluded the instant employment contract by misrepresenting the manager’s agent in spite of the fact that he was not elected as the vice-chairperson at the management body meeting. The instant employment contract is null and void as an act of unauthorized representation.

In addition, the plaintiff has determined the issue of management and operation of the commercial building of this case through the board of directors as stipulated in Article 9 of the articles of incorporation, and the appointment and dismissal of the director of the management office has also been decided through the board of directors. Although the defendant B decided not to extend the term of office of the defendant C at the board of directors held on May 21, 2015, the labor contract of this case was concluded at his own discretion. The conclusion of the labor contract of this case by the defendant B is null and void as a non-representative act violating the restriction of

E. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from a tort, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount equivalent to 41,433,500 won paid by Defendant C from February 2015, as the return of unjust enrichment.