1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the instant officetel 520, non-Dong-dong, and the Defendant is a person appointed as an agent for the manager of the instant officetel at the Committee for Representative of the floor held on October 9, 2010 (in accordance with Article 5(2) of the Management Rules, the Committee comprised of not less than 20 but not more than 42 members representing the total number of 864 households of the instant officetels).

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is obligated to return to the management body, since it illegally withdraws KRW 87,115,40 in total from the deposit account in the name of the management body from October 9, 2010 to May 16, 201, and embezzled without permission, since it did not have any dispute.

The Plaintiff, as a sectional owner of the instant officetel, seeks to return the said embezzled money to the management body pursuant to the proviso of Article 16(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”), as an act of preserving common areas, as an act of preserving common areas.

Article 16 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "matters concerning the management of the section for common use shall be determined by a resolution at an ordinary assembly under Article 38 (1), except in cases falling under the main sentence of Article 15 (1): Provided, That preservation activities may be performed by each co-owner," and Article 2 (4) of the same Act provides that "the term "the section for common use, other than the section for exclusive use, the section for the building not belonging to the section for exclusive use, the accessory to the building not belonging to the section for exclusive use,

Therefore, since money deposited in the management body account cannot be the "section for common use" under the Aggregate Buildings Act, the plaintiff cannot seek the return of embezzlement money against the defendant as preservation act of "section for common use".

In addition, the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 7 and 9 is sufficient against the defendant's own account.