1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,095,491 as well as 6% per annum from August 6, 2014 to December 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of managing apartment houses and buildings, and the Defendant is the management body of the building in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Around November 2012, the Defendant entered into an entrustment management contract (hereinafter “the first contract”) with the Plaintiff, under which the Plaintiff entrusted the instant building and the Defendant would pay KRW 519,280 (including value-added tax) monthly service costs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff performed the entrusted management work of the instant building in accordance with the said contract.

C. On February 28, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the first contract was terminated, and the Plaintiff directly performed the management of the instant building from March 1, 2013, and on May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013, under the condition that the Plaintiff entrusted the instant building and succeeds to the employment of the staff in charge of the management affairs belonging to the previous Defendant, and succeeds to the legal responsibility related thereto, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 36,770,575 per month at the service cost.

D. D.

On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Defendant directly employed the Director of the Management Office was in violation of the instant contract, and notified the termination of the instant contract around July 8, 2013. On July 10, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the employees in charge of management of the termination of the instant contract as of August 31, 2013.

E. Thereafter, the officials in charge of the management has continued to manage the building of this case.

The amount paid by the defendant for the pertinent month in August 34, 306, 915 October 5, 500,50,544,330 24,757,890 November 3, 660,110,757,890 24,757,757,890 24,757,890

F. From the end of August 2013, the Defendant asserted that, since the determination of service costs of the instant contract was erroneous, the Plaintiff demanded adjustment and should receive restitution of unjust enrichment. From that time, the Defendant is out of the service costs stipulated in the instant contract as indicated below.