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

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with D (hereinafter “D”) for the management of the building that the Plaintiff is entrusted by D with the management of C commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

E F G I CD B H

B. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant, as a management body comprised of sectional owners of buildings under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, constituted a representative committee and commenced its activities.

On July 6, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant contract will be terminated as of August 15, 2016, and notified the Plaintiff again on August 11, 2016 that the date of termination of the contract would be changed to August 31, 2016, and concluded a management service contract by selecting another company.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff terminated the management work on August 31, 2016.

C. Each management fee for July 2016 and August 2016, including the Plaintiff’s service fees, was collected from the occupant’s account in the name of the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In the meantime, as the Defendant succeeded to the status of a party to the instant contract from D or concluded a new consignment management contract with the Plaintiff, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 28,894,395, which is the remainder after deducting KRW 26,574,445, which the Plaintiff possessed from the total sum of KRW 24,77,150, and KRW 30,691,690, and KRW 30,691,690, and KRW 55,468,840, respectively, for the amount of KRW 26,574,

B. Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff performed the management of the building C even though there is no contractual relationship with the Defendant, and the Defendant obtained a benefit equivalent to the service cost, and thus the Defendant is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, or managed the business for the Defendant without any obligation of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant was the service cost to the Plaintiff.