1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,226,420 as well as the annual rate from August 1, 2017 to August 30, 2017, and the following.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the facts identical to the entry of the cause of the claim in the annexed sheet can be acknowledged in the judgment on the plaintiff's claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to Gap evidence Nos. 8-2 (including evidence with a serial number).

According to the facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff has the authority to collect management expenses for the building of this case pursuant to the management contract of this case, and imposed management expenses pursuant to the above authority. Thus, the plaintiff may claim management expenses of 43,226,420 to the defendant, except in special circumstances.

The defendant removed the locks of the underground floor from the end of June 2017, but later failed to use it actually. The defendant asserts that the management expenses of the underground floor from February 2, 2017 to July 2017 claimed by the plaintiff should be borne by the owner of the underground floor before the owner of the underground floor (representative D).

The above argument denies the above facts of recognition, and there is no counter-proof of the defendant to reverse the fact-finding.

The main point of the Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not have legitimate right to manage is invalid since the instant building management agreement entered into with the management committee (representative E) on August 22, 2014 is an entrusted management agreement entered into with the management committee’s unlawful representative, and thus, the Plaintiff does not have the right to collect management fees.

Judgment

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the representative E of the Building Management Committee of this case has expired in 2013 and has failed to obtain a resolution for reappointment of the management committee chairperson at the annual meeting of the Management Committee, and Eul has received a resolution of non-Confidence in the extraordinary general meeting of sectional owners of the building of this case on August 10, 2012.

However, the relationship between the corporation and the director, who is the institution, is the same as the legal relationship between the mandator and the delegated person, so the delegation relationship should be terminated once the term of office expires.