1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,295,920 as well as 5% per annum from January 3, 2018 to January 24, 2019, and the next day.

1. The summary of the case is the case where the plaintiff claimed the payment of the delinquent management fee against the defendant who is one of the sectional owners as a management body of an aggregate building based on the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act"), and the defendant first claims the party ability of the plaintiff and the representative's representative's defects as the main safety defense, and further disputes the occurrence and appropriateness of the management fee claimed by the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a management body established pursuant to Article 23 of the Multi-Family Building Act for the purpose of implementing projects for the management of building A located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (a total of 216 households; hereinafter “instant building”) and its site and its attached facilities. The Defendant is a sectional owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 17, 2015 with respect to subparagraph 5 of the above building, which completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the management rules. (b) The Plaintiff organized the management committee with written consent from a majority of occupants of the instant building on October 12, 2006, and was elected as the president of the management committee as F, directors G, H, I, and auditor, respectively.

Since then, K was elected as the president at the meeting of the management committee held on November 29, 2016.

3) On June 8, 2017, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff to the Seoul Central District Court to the effect that "the plaintiff is a management body established under Article 23 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (the claim)" (the plaintiff's claim No. 1), and the non-party K is not the plaintiff's manager under Article 24 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (the above court 2017Gahap23962 case, hereinafter "the separate lawsuit") (the above court 2017Gahap23962 case, hereinafter "the separate lawsuit"). In this regard, the above court did not dispute over the plaintiff's appointment of management body established under Article 23 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and the plaintiff's claim No. 1 does not have a benefit of lawsuit, and the plaintiff's chairperson and management member were lawfully elected through a resolution of the management committee.