1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is indicated as the representative of the plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a management body comprised of sectional owners of A shopping mall (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”). C is the Plaintiff’s representative duly appointed by the written general meeting of July 22, 2006, the inaugural general meeting of June 24, 2007, and the special meeting of June 24, 2007, and the manager of the instant building at the written general meeting of August 2010.

The Defendant asserted that “the sectional owner of the first floor of the instant building 1054, which was submitted by the Plaintiff at the first instance court on April 21, 2015,” was “the sectional owner of the first floor of the instant building 1052.”

Despite the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay monthly membership fees pursuant to the Plaintiff’s management rules, the Plaintiff did not fully pay monthly membership fees from July 2006 to August 2014.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,677,902 and late payment KRW 3,751,014 for the unpaid monthly membership fees and KRW 5,428,916 (= KRW 1,677,902) and delay damages therefor.

B. The defendant's main defense is not a management body of the building of this case under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, but an entity as a non-corporate group under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.

In addition, C is not a legitimate representative of the management body of the building of this case since it was not legally elected as the manager of the management body of the building of this case under the Aggregate Buildings Act.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit should be dismissed as it is unlawful.

2. Determination

A. Since the burden of proof of the requirements for a lawsuit, which is a matter of ex officio investigation, has been instituted against the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da39301, Jul. 25, 1997). C is a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to prove C’s power of representation is all as of July 22, 2006 at the inaugural general meeting of the Plaintiff and June 24, 2007.