1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the counterclaim defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The building in Seoul Jung-gu D, E, F, and G ground A apartment 102 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) is a major complex building consisting of three underground floors and 10 floors above ground, apartment 29 households and two commercial buildings.

B. The counterclaim Defendant is an organization consisting of the occupants or users of the apartment of the instant building, and is performing management duties, such as receiving management expenses, by having a general meeting and the president for the management of the instant building. The counterclaim Defendant is the president of the counterclaim Defendant from September 5, 2012 to before H was elected as the president from the special general meeting of the counterclaim Defendant to the special meeting of September 5, 2012, and was actually residing in the instant building.

C. On April 17, 2006, the apartment building 604 (hereinafter “instant 604”) of the instant building (hereinafter “instant 604”) had completed the ownership transfer registration in the name of B (the Defendant was the Defendant in the first instance, but the counterclaim Defendant withdrawn the principal lawsuit against B at the trial) who is a major father of the Lessee on December 5, 2013.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the counterclaim are as follows: (a) the "Plaintiff" of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "the counterclaim defendant"; and (b) the judgment on the counterclaim defendant's assertion under Chapter 8, Chapter 4 is the same as the part of the "decision on the 3. Counterclaim claim" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the counterclaim defendant's assertion as follows; (c) thus,

C. As the Counterclaim Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of the Counterclaim Defendant paid management expenses on behalf of the unpaid occupant of management expenses, the Counterclaim Defendant, not the occupant, did not make any unjust enrichment. Even if the Counterclaim Defendant bears the obligation to return unjust enrichment, the Counterclaim Defendant did not pay the electricity fee, thereby causing damage to the Counterclaim Defendant, and the Counterclaim Defendant did not pay the electricity fee.