1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2.The action for subrogation by obligee, added in the trial, shall be dismissed;

3...

1. The reasoning for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “an additional part” in paragraph (2) and “a judgment on the assertion added in the trial” in paragraph (3) below, and thus, the relevant statement is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The third party judgment of the first instance added the following: “It is reasonable to see that the management authority over the building of this case belongs to the management body of the building of this case” (as the Plaintiff did not appoint the management body of this case, the management authority of the building of this case was asserted to the non-party company, the owner of the building, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).

B. Following the third end of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff added the following: “The meaning of Paragraph 7 above shall be deemed effective until the general meeting of the management body is held.” However, if the approval of the general meeting is not obtained, the second contract shall be deemed invalid from that time to that time. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.”

3. Judgment on the assertion added in the trial

A. The plaintiff asserts that the part of creditor subrogation claim is the exercise of the right to claim management expenses against the defendant of the above management body based on the plaintiff's right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the management body of this case.

The plaintiff exercise the right to claim management expenses against the defendant of the management body on the premise that the management body of this case is insolvent. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the management body of this case is insolvent. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part of this case is unlawful as it is not deemed necessary to preserve it.

B. The plaintiff's management of the building of this case constitutes a business management in relation to the defendant.