1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

The court's explanation on the validity of each of the contracts in this case is based on the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, "1. Recognition" and "2. Judgment"

A. As to the determination as to the validity of each of the contracts of this case, it is identical to the statement of “determination as to the validity of each of the contracts of this case,” this is cited by the main text

According to the existence and scope of the part of the claim against the Defendant managing body, the Defendant managing body is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff fees for the management of the instant building from February 1, 2012 to August 30, 2013, fees for the management of the instant building, etc. from February 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, expenses for management and operation, litigation, etc. paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-1, 3, and 6-1 of evidence Nos. 1-3 and 6-1, the plaintiff paid the management and operation expenses, litigation expenses, etc. which the defendant management body should pay even before July 18, 2012 of the agreement of this case from the beginning of the first contract period to July 18, 2012, according to the statement No. 2-1 of evidence No. 2-1, the date on which the first overdue payment occurred is the date on March 15, 2012 and the date on which the last overdue payment occurred is December 31, 2012;

The fact that the defendant management body was a party to a transaction in the tax contract issued for this period, and that the defendant management body voluntarily requested the plaintiff to pay the loan on the ground that the delinquent amount of the management fee for the above period is excessive and the amount of delinquent amount of the management fee for the above period is insufficient to operate the building, etc. The plaintiff paid for the shortage of management and operation expenses at the request of the defendant management body or by the agreement between the defendant management body. It is reasonable to view that the agreement of this case was about the total amount of the management and operation expenses paid by the plaintiff for the defendant management body, regardless of whether it was before or after the date of the preparation of the agreement, and therefore, the defendant management body is also obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of the loan from February 1, 2012 to July 17, 2012, which was before the execution of the agreement of this case.