1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall complete payment to the Plaintiff of KRW 1,327,40 and its amount from April 11, 2014.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is operating a reading room in the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B commercial building Nos. 504 through 509 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

Since the Defendant did not have the right to collect management expenses, it received KRW 1,327,400 from the Plaintiff as management expenses for January 201, even though it did not have the right to collect management expenses, the Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 1,327,40 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Before July 201, 201, the Defendant’s alleged B management body duly appointed a manager and commenced management work, the B prosperity association comprised of the shop occupants of the instant shopping mall (hereinafter “instant prosperity association”) was the sole management body. The Defendant concluded an entrustment contract with the instant prosperity association on or around December 2010, and lawfully performed the management work of the instant shopping mall by June 201, and thus, was entitled to collect management expenses from the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant spent all management expenses received from the shop occupants for the actual management expenses, it did not make unjust enrichment.

2. The management body under Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”) is not an organization established only through any organizational act, but where a sectional ownership relationship is constituted, as a matter of course, an organization formed by all sectional owners. Thus, if the sale of an aggregate building is commenced and occupancy is required and joint management is conducted, a management body is established with all sectional owners, including sectional owners of the unsold section of exclusive ownership at the time.

However, there is no evidence that the prosperity association of this case is an organization formed by all sectional owners of the commercial building of this case, and rather, according to the purport of Gap's statements and arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, B management body and C.