The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant K, Defendant M, Defendant N, and DefendantO is reversed, and this part of the case is in question.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant J, the lower court determined that the Defendant J imposed the management fee for the joint use area of KRW 17,305,333 on August 2013 to May 2015 on the part of Defendant J, the owner of the instant commercial building, from August 2013 to May 2015.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant K, Defendant M, Defendant N, and DefendantO

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

1) Since April 1, 2008, F continued to perform duties such as facility management, expenses, U.S. dollars, management expenses, imposition and collection of management expenses, etc. for the instant commercial buildings as well as officetels. 2) From August 1, 2013, F entered into a building management service contract with the Plaintiff with respect to the instant building, and F had the Plaintiff perform all the duties necessary for the management, operation, facility management, and U.S. dollars of the instant building.

3) The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with F as the person supplied with the services it performed. The amount of the tax invoice shall be 35,121,382 won on August 2013, 2013, 49,468,900 won on September 2013, 2013, and 52,007,890 won on October 2013, 2013, and 53,601,520 won on December 20, 2013, and 204. 7. 1. 1. 2. 2. 4. 5,20,00,890 won on December 2, 2013, 207, 3. 4. 1. 2. 1. 5,207, 207, 37,037,037,440, 2. 1. 4,2014, respectively. 37, 201. 4. 1.