1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a management body composed of sectional owners in the Atel building in Daejeon Pungdong-gu C, and the defendant is the owner of the 1st underground floor D of the above building.

B. The above subparagraph D is registered with the management office as E, F, and G.

C. From April 201 to June 2015, the Defendant did not pay 28,195,650 won for management expenses of subparagraph E and 2,631,570 won for late payment, and 1,545,470 won for management expenses from April 201 to June 2015 for subparagraph F, and 143,890 won for late payment, and 842,620 won for management expenses from April 201 to June 2015 for subparagraph G and 78,530 won for late payment.

The defendant shall pay the expenses for monthly management to the plaintiff by the 25th day of the following month.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 16, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, is obligated to pay damages for delay to the plaintiff 33,437,430 won, which is the sum of the management expenses and late fees in arrears, and 30,583,740 won, which is the sum of the management expenses in arrears and late payment fees.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of breach of management duty, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s damage compensation claim is set off against the Plaintiff’s management claim, on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to properly manage the No. D, and that the Plaintiff could not use the normal commercial building by blocking the entrance. Even if the management expenses are to be paid, the Defendant incurred a total of KRW 127,50,000 (i.e., the Plaintiff’s store or common property not being properly used due to the Plaintiff’s breach of management duty (i.e., monthly rent of KRW 17 million x total of KRW 75 months from November 201 to December 2016).

However, the entries and images of the evidence Nos. 1 through 10 are sufficient to recognize the defendant's above assertion.