1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant (a counterclaim) who exceeds the amount that orders the payment of the following amounts.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. A building located on two lots, including Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, (hereinafter “instant building”) is a main complex building with the size of five stories above the ground level of the five stories above the ground level, which was approved on February 4, 1971, and is an apartment building consisting of two stories below the ground level; the first floor above the ground level is a transformation machine room and commercial building; the second floor above the ground level is a parking lot and apartment building; the third floor above the ground level and the fourth floor are an apartment building; the area of each floor is an apartment building composed of two stories below the ground level; the second floor above the ground level is an apartment building; the area of each floor is 2,100.4 square meters below the ground level; the first floor is 3,424.64 square meters above the ground level; the second floor above the ground level and the second floor above the ground level is 2,03.74 square meters above the ground level of 2

나. 이 사건 건물은 상가와 아파트로 구성된 주상복합건물로서 1971. 2. 4.경 사용승인을 받은 당시부터 현재에 이르기까지 상가 구분소유자들로 구성된 관리단인 원고가 2층 중 별지 도면 표시 ㉮, ㉯, ㉰, ㉱, ㉲, ㉮의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 부분(이하 ‘이 사건 사무실’이라 한다)에 관리사무실을 두고 상가 부분을, 아파트 구분소유자들로 구성된 관리단인 피고가 같은 도면 표시 ㉱, ㉲, ㉳, ㉴, ㉱의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 부분에 관리사무실을 두고 아파트 부분을 각각 관리하여 왔다.

C. The Defendant independently managed the parking lot on the second floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) and obtained a total of KRW 120,730,000 from 208 to 2017 with parking fees paid by occupants and outside persons. Moreover, for the installation of telecommunications equipment, the Defendant leased the rooftop of the instant building (hereinafter “instant rooftop”) to multiple radio operators, and obtained a total of KRW 67,90,000 from 208 to 2017 with the rent, while the Defendant spent KRW 3,60,000 with the electric charge of telecommunications equipment during the period of 2017, spent KRW 22,100,000 at that expense.