1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 "I" in Part 15 shall be changed to "A".

Part 3, Paragraph 11, "the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) only recognized only KRW 58,368,230 among the expenditure statements expressed by the Defendant," and "the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is seeking to return to the Defendant the amount of money, such as that stated in the purport of the claim, as unjust enrichment, out of KRW 92,739,770, which deducts the sum of the expenditure in the name of electric utility charges, septic tanks, building cleaning, elevators maintenance and repair, and waterproof construction costs, from KRW 151,108,00, revenues of KRW 158,368,230."

Then, “less there is an explanation” in Part 3 17, following the Defendant stated that this Court has disbursed the Defendant’s expenses in relation to the maintenance and repair of the above M lending elevator, the public electricity charges for buildings, the defect repair works in around 2005, the rooftop waterproof and pipinging works, the M lending building repair works, the construction of the floor of the hole behind the M lending building, the construction of the 402 and 302 Vietnam waterproof, etc. This corresponds to the considerable portion of the Defendant’s assertion, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s management period from January 2004 to December 2015 exceeds 11 years.”

In Part 3, "I do not have" in Part 20, and thereafter, "I do not proceed further to a judgment as to the defendant's preliminary defense, which is premised on the acceptance of the claim by the plaintiff (appointed party)."

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the appeal by the plaintiff (appointed party) is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.