1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Seo-gu Daejeon District Association consisting of the tenants of the Seo-gu Daejeon District, Daejeon, and the Defendant vicariously performed the Plaintiff’s building management work by December 31, 2016.

However, the defendant did not pay the electricity and water rates, even though the electricity and water rates were collected from the lessees as included in the management expenses.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages from KRW 23,568,90 in total by paying the electricity charges of KRW 17,61,810 in October and November of the same year and the water rates of KRW 5,907,180 in November and December of the same year.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by default or tort.

2. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the defendant entered into a contract with Eul to be entrusted with the management of each commercial building (hereinafter "instant commercial building") on three parcels, other than Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon. The plaintiff paid KRW 17,61,810 on October and November of the same year, and KRW 5,907,180 on November and December of the same year.

However, a management body under Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings is not an organization established only through an organizational act but an organization formed by sectional ownership as a matter of course if there is a building established by sectional ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4985, Mar. 28, 2013). The Plaintiff is an organization consisting of lessees who are not sectional owners of the instant commercial building. However, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff as a management body of the instant commercial building solely with the statement of evidence Nos. 11 and 12, and there is insufficient evidence to deem that the actual party of the management entrustment agreement concluded between D and the Defendant is not D, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are not the Plaintiff.