1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

purport.

Facts of recognition

In order to manage and operate the site and building of a department store A (hereinafter referred to as “the instant condominium”) in Bupyeong-si, the Plaintiff is a management body comprised of all sectional owners under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as “the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”), and has managed the instant condominium and imposed management fees on the occupants.

The Defendants are sectional owners holding the instant condominiums as follows.

The title No. 1 B 25 No. 225, F 5 F 221, 226, 326, 422, 422, 3, 226, 422, 6 G 4, 123, 34 E 2, 31, 30, 32, 30, 31, 42, 416, 42, 30, 302, 32, 300, 31, 31, 416 under the management body agreement of this case, which was one of the sectional owners of the aggregate buildings of this case, filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment (the repayment of unjust enrichment by the Incheon District Court Branch 2010, 39712).

In the above case, in calculating the number of written resolution by the sectional owners in accordance with the provision of Article 41 (1) of the Multi-unit Building Act, in relation to the validity of the plaintiff's management body agreement, if one person owns several sections of the multi-unit building in the multi-unit building, it shall be calculated as one sectional owner. The plaintiff's management body agreement did not meet the quorum because it did not obtain the consent or approval of not less than 4/5 of the sectional owners of the multi-unit building in this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's management body agreement

The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the foregoing judgment, filed an appeal (the Incheon District Court 2013Na6254) and the final appeal (the Supreme Court 2014Da72197). However, both appeals and final appeals were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 21, 2015.

The aggregate building of this case also remains effective.