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. Basic facts

A. Ulsannam-gu D ground E-Ba (hereinafter “instant loan”) consists of four households. The Plaintiff owns 201, 401, 501, and 501.

B. The occupants of the loan of this case returned to the head of the Ban every two years to manage the loan of this case, and the head of the Ban around 2012 was Defendant B, and Defendant C was responsible for the head of the Ban thereafter.

C. Around October 2012, water leakage occurs on the instant lending rooftop; Defendant B performed a rooftop waterproof construction work (hereinafter “instant waterproof construction”) and repaired a joint signature. Around October 2012, Defendant B spent KRW 1,900,000 for the instant waterproof construction cost, and KRW 520,000 for the joint signature repair cost.

Defendant B used 2,420,00 won (=1,90,000 won) which is part of the expenses for the waterproof construction and the expenses for the repair of the joint text of this case as management expenses accumulated during that period, and appropriated 220,000 won which is part of the expenses for the repair of the joint text of this case, and the remainder of 2,200,000 won was shared by the owners of the instant lending.

E. Accordingly, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant C’s 301 owner deposited their share in the passbook on October 25, 2012.

F. Defendant B knew the Plaintiff of the number of the rooftop water and the damage of the joint signature and design and the construction thereof.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul 1, 2, and 4 (including each number), or the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot recognize the fact of the waterproof Construction in this case, and that Defendant B unilaterally carried out the construction without discussing the Plaintiff’s construction cost, estimate, and the selection of the construction company in the course of carrying out the waterproof Construction. Thus, the Plaintiff did not have a duty to share the expenses incurred in the said construction.

The facts of this case’s waterproof Construction are as seen earlier, and Defendant B is the construction work necessary for the maintenance and repair of the instant waterproof section for common use.