Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) who falls under the amount of the next order ordering payment.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added or emphasized the judgment of the court of appeal as to the assertion added or emphasized by the court of appeal, and a part of the judgment differs from that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. On the argument that the Plaintiff did not have the right to collect management expenses, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not have the right to impose management expenses on the Plaintiff, as it cannot be seen as a management body under the Condominium

Article 23 (1) of the Act on Condominium Buildings is established for the purpose of the management of buildings, their sites and their accessory facilities by making all sectional owners as members of sectional owners if the relationship of sectional ownership is established.

The management body is not an organization established only through an organizational act, but an organization established by the sectional ownership relationship, as a matter of course, with all sectional owners as members of the sectional ownership.

In addition, if an organization consisting of a sectional owner and conforms to the purpose of Article 23 (1) of the Condominium Act, it may play a role as a management unit, regardless of its existence form or name, and is composed of a sectional owner and a person who is not a sectional owner.

Even if a management body consisting of separate owners may concurrently possess the characteristics of a management body (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da27199, Aug. 23, 1996; 2012Da3746, Feb. 18, 2016). The following facts are acknowledged according to the aforementioned evidence.

① The instant aggregate building is a commercial building of the first and fifth floors underground built on the ground of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and its sectional owners and lessees constituted the Plaintiff’s organization on February 201 and enacted management regulations.

(2) According to the management rules (No. 1 evidence), a “separate owner” has sold a commercial building in lots.