1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 3,282,160 as well as the full payment from January 27, 2014.

1. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. On December 4, 2009, the Plaintiff was a management company established by investing the property owned by the management body A for the efficient operation and management of the building A 5,366 commercial buildings located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and entered into an entrustment management contract with the management body A, setting the contract period between the Defendant and the management body A until the Defendant is dissolved, and the Defendant is only the ice library A (hereinafter referred to as the “ice library”).

(2) According to Article 48(1) of the Plaintiff’s Management Rules, if the manager fails to pay the management fee by the due date, 2/100 of the unpaid principal shall be added to the late payment charge every one month after the due date for payment.

3) From November 2012 to December 201, 2013, the Defendant delayed payment of KRW 3,282,160,00 in the aggregate of KRW 2,865,470, and arrears calculated by 24% per annum of the principal and unpaid principal of management expenses from the claim amounting to the claim amounting to KRW 24%. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute over the non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including family numbers, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the principal and the late payment fees in arrears from November 201, 2012 to December 2013, 2013, as well as 2,865,470 won among the principal and the late payment damages in arrears, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim and the defendant's argument

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that the management consignment agreement is null and void due to the problem in the composition of the management body that entrusted the management to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant asserts that the claim for management fee claimed by the Plaintiff as an illegal organization without legitimate management authority is unjustifiable. 2) Moreover, the Defendant, Inc., Ltd., carried out the artificial park construction for four months from November 201 to March 201, and noise and dust during the above period due to the Plaintiff’s negligence in management.