1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 100,000 and KRW 30,000,00 among them.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the judgment on the defendant's additional proposal as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5th page "the defendant who is the president and the administrator of the shopping mall management body," "the defendant who is the president and the administrator of the shopping mall management body," and accordingly, the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 50 million, in the name of the defendant's deposit account on June 12, 2009 and KRW 20 million on October 30, 2009, and KRW 30 million on October 30, 2009."

Under 3 pages, the 5th parallel "F.," and the 4th parallel "g.," respectively, shall be written into "h.," and the 5th parallel "h.," respectively.

3) Under the 3th six parallels, “The Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the deposit amount as KRW 100 million shall be the amount including the existing deposit amount of KRW 50 million, and the Plaintiff, under the name of additional deposit deposit under the second management delegation contract, remitted the sum of KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s deposit account on April 18, 201 and KRW 50 million on May 17, 201.”

In the 4th parallel 8th parallel and 9th parallel, the Plaintiff added “Around the end of 2018, the Plaintiff delivered the instant parking lot to some sectional owners.”

The 6th to 7th parallels (Article 2-2(b)) shall be done in the following manner:

Furthermore, the scope of damages is examined.

The defendant asserts that the second management delegation contract does not cause any damage to the plaintiff on the premise that it is valid for the management body of the building of this case. However, the plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the defendant due to the defendant's unauthorized representation, and the plaintiff could no longer operate the parking lot of this case, and even if the contract was terminated, the plaintiff could not claim for the return of KRW 100 million to the management body of the building of this case.