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.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 17, 2012, the Defendant leased the said store from the owner C of Article 301 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant store”) located in Kimhae-si B (hereinafter “instant store”) during the lease period from October 6, 2012 to October 5, 2013.

B. The plaintiff is the managing body of the above A building, and the provisions of the plaintiff's articles of incorporation concerning management expenses are as follows.

Article 10 (Matters to be Observed by Owners of Undeveloped Store)

1. The owner shall be responsible for the payment of management expenses calculated by the prosperity even if he/she does not operate a commercial building;

Article 11 (Management Expenses)

1. The occupants shall bear electricity charges, water supply and sewerage expenses, cleaning expenses, cleaning expenses, expenses for building operation, office maintenance expenses, expenses for various meetings operation expenses, and personnel expenses as administrative expenses;

C. The Defendant did not occupy and use the instant store once after renting it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant leased the instant store, but did not pay KRW 3,301,436 in total the management expenses from January 2013 to October 2013. Therefore, the Defendant, as the managing body of the instant store, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said expenses.

B. According to the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, the Defendant is obligated to pay management expenses to the owner or occupant of the instant store, and the Defendant is not the owner of the instant store. In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 1, the Defendant who did not occupy and use the instant store once does not constitute the occupant of the instant store. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

1. Article 10 of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides that “The owner shall be liable for the payment of management expenses calculated by the prosperity even if the proprietor does not operate the commercial building,” and the above provision provides that “The owner shall be liable for the payment of management expenses calculated by the prosperity.”