1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 6,97,640 and its KRW 5,078,990 among the judgment of the court of first instance shall begin on September 12, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was established on May 12, 2009 for the purpose of managing and operating the shopping mall of this case, which is the 7th underground floor in Jung-gu Seoul and the 16th apartment building (hereinafter “the shopping mall of this case”).

The Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of the establishment of a superstore pursuant to the Distribution Industry Development Act, and received a superstore establishment registration certificate from the head of the Gu in Seoul on April 22, 201, and the head of the Gu on September 4, 2013 accepted the Plaintiff’s report on the superstore operator.

The plaintiff deals with the duties of imposing and collecting management fees of the shopping mall of this case as the qualification of the superstore manager and claiming management fees for the unpaid manager.

B. The Defendant is a sectional owner of the fifth floor E store of the shopping mall of this case (hereinafter “instant store”).

C. As to the instant store, the Defendant did not pay 8,756,420 won (i.e., management fees of KRW 6,031,780 in arrears of KRW 2,724,640 in arrears of KRW 6,724,640 in management expenses) for the period from December 2012 to July 2017 (i.e., unpaid management expenses of KRW 5,078,990 in arrears of KRW 5,078,990 in arrears of KRW 1,918,650). Among them, the details of unpaid management expenses and late payment fees for the period from September 2013 to July 2017 are as stated in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's prior defenses on the merits to the effect that the plaintiff did not have the right to collect management expenses, and thus, the plaintiff has a prior defense on the merits to the effect that the plaintiff did not have the right to sue. In the performance lawsuit, the plaintiff has standing to sue, and the person who asserted as the performance obligor has standing to sue, and the original defendant does not have the right to demand performance or is the performance obligor. Thus, the defendant's prior defense on the merits does not need to be examined

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Determination on the cause of the claim 1.