1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is revoked, and that part is against the Defendants.

The scope of the court's adjudication

A. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff, as the primary claim against the Defendant, claimed management expenses based on the premise that the management service contract is valid, ② claims for performance, preliminary claims based on the contract for the third party, ② claims for restitution of unjust enrichment on behalf of the managing body, ② claims for reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s expenses on behalf of the managing body, or reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s expenses on behalf

B. The first instance court accepted the claim for performance under a contract for a third party among the main claims (the claim was dismissed on the premise that the management service contract is valid), and the conjunctive claim was dismissed or dismissed.

C. Accordingly, since the defendant appealed against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant among the primary claims of the judgment of the court of first instance (the claim for performance under a contract for a third party).

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited as it includes summary words under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

When entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendants asserted by the parties entered into a contract with the third party for the payment of management expenses of the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 250,00,000 to the third party (at least a concurrently assumed obligation). Meanwhile, the claims established under the contract with I and the Defendants entered into with the third party shall be deemed as the agreed amount claim. Thus, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff at least 250,000,000 won under the contract with the third party.

The main point of the Defendants’ assertion is that H is not a manager of the instant condominium or the instant commercial building, and there is no authority to conclude a management services contract, and the instant management services contract has no effect, and the Plaintiff cannot seek payment of management fees based on the said contract.

The Defendants concluded the instant sales contract.