1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount exceeds the amount ordered to be paid.

1. The reason why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the basic facts and counterclaim claims is as follows: (a) Eul, which is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as evidence submitted additionally in the trial; and (b) the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, "D," which is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except where all the parts of "D," "construction of mobilization of a stock company" (hereinafter " mobilization construction") are changed, and therefore, it

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not pay 7,642,770 won for management expenses from August 2010 to November 2012 regarding the instant store. Although the former owner of the said store succeeded to the unpaid mobilization construction of KRW 2,536,540 from October 209 to May 2010, the Defendant did not pay the unpaid construction expenses, the amount of which is 120,058,520 won calculated by deducting 120,790 won for unpaid construction from the total amount of the management expenses, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the special successor for the maintenance and management expenses of the entire sectional owner regardless of the special owner’s entitlement to the management expenses for the common use. Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that the special successor’s claim against the other co-owners for the maintenance and management expenses of the aggregate building should also be jointly exercised. Thus, the claim against the former co-owners for the maintenance and management expenses of the aggregate building.