1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the housing management operator who entered into the instant consignment management contract with the council of occupants’ representatives of the Gu B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) during Ansan-si around July 1, 2010, and was in charge of the entrusted management of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The defendant was employed by the plaintiff and worked as the head of the apartment management office of this case while performing duties in violation of the laws and regulations related to apartment management, and as a result of the audit of the Ansan-si, the plaintiff and the council of occupants' representatives of this case were pointed out.

As a result, the Plaintiff was also terminated by the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case. Thus, the Defendant is liable for damages equivalent to KRW 8,323,769 in total of the entrusted management fees for the remaining contract term that the Plaintiff was unable to receive due to the termination of the contract of this case.

B. The plaintiff and the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case who were subject to the disposition of the above administrative fine as alleged by the defendant's assertion were erroneous, and the result of the audit and the disposition of imposition of the administrative fine cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for termination under the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant is not liable

C. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 4, 6, 12, and 13, the Plaintiff entered into an entrusted management contract with the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment on June 10, 2015, with a period of contract fixed from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. As a result of an internal audit on the management of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff was found to have violated the provisions of Articles 43-4(2), 45(5), and 47 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13474, Aug. 11, 2015) (the formulation of a long-term repair plan and the use, etc. of long-term repair appropriations) and was discovered on January 1, 2017.