1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to KRW 2,947,847 against the Plaintiff and KRW 361,987 among them, the judgment of the court of first instance on March 17, 2016 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A commercial building in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) is an aggregate building consisting of 32 units in total from underground floors to 3 floors and 162.807 square meters in area of exclusive ownership.

B. From May 2008, the Plaintiff, while managing the entire commercial building of this case from around May 2008, divided general management costs, public electricity charges, and water supply charges incurred in relation to the management and operation of the commercial building of this case into the proportion of the whole area of each sectional owner’s exclusive ownership, and claimed the management fees against the sectional owner

C. As to the instant shopping mall No. 4, August 4, 2015, the Defendant is the sectional owner of the instant shopping mall who completed each registration of ownership transfer regarding the instant shopping mall No. 5, F, G, and H (hereinafter “instant title”) on June 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of No. 6 (including a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's argument that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff is not a legitimate management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") with respect to the commercial building of this case, and I cannot be deemed a legitimate representative of the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether or not there exists the right to demand performance is a matter to be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, Oct. 7, 2005). The lawsuit in this case is asserted by the plaintiff that he/she has the right to demand management expenses, and constitutes a lawsuit for performance as the defendant's right to demand management expenses. Therefore, the plaintiff has standing to sue solely based on his/her assertion, and therefore the defense of the defendant is without merit (

(2) The Plaintiff is lawful.