1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to this court was presented, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in the following Paragraph 2 to the assertion that the Plaintiff newly adopted or emphasized in this court. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that his claim against the management body of this case has the nature of the repayment of expenses due to the management of affairs, and Article 739(2) of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis to Article 688(2) of the Civil Act. Thus, the plaintiff's exercise of creditor's subrogation right with the preserved claim against the management body of this case does not require the insolvency of the management body of this case.

In light of the above, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone cannot be seen as holding a claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred in managing affairs against the instant management body, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. It is apparent that the Plaintiff’s claim itself does not fall under the requirements of Article 739(2) of the Civil Act (when the manager bears a necessary or beneficial obligation for the principal). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without further review.

B. The Plaintiff repeatedly uses the status of representative of the instant management body without permission by the Defendant, resulting in conflict with the appointment of a manager, and at the general meeting of the management body, abused ownership by means of transferring the number of voting rights to increase the number of voting rights, etc., or even if the Defendant continued to enjoy ownership on the fourth-sixth floor of the instant building under divided ownership, it shall be accepted or accepted.