1. The part against the defendant regarding the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the said part shall be revoked.

1. The grounds for use of this part of the basic facts are as follows: ① (a) the 3rd written evidence of the first instance judgment “4, 24 evidence”; (b) the 6th written evidence “Defendant” was added to “Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) as “Defendant’s trade name was changed to “SM sports” of the 4th written judgment; and (c) the 45th written judgment of the first instance judgment as of June 5, 2014, the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff on the following day of the 4th written judgment of the first instance judgment (the Defendant asserted that the above building was delivered to the Plaintiff on the ground of decline in sales due to the Plaintiff’s use restriction and public notice installation, etc.); and (d) the 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Upon the termination of the instant contract, the Defendant joined an outside person who is not the occupant of the instant apartment in the course of operating the instant center as its members. The instant center installed electric measuring instruments only for electric lights and did not bear electricity charges for air conditioners for heating and cooling, and the Defendant did not bear water charges for water supply for showers by installing only the water meters for toilets changeers.

On August 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) installed electric measuring instruments for heating and cooling equipment and shower water measuring instruments to the instant center; and (b) corrected them; and (c) imposed the electricity and water fee not paid by the Defendant on the Defendant; (b) only partially paid the Defendant.

(2) As of June 1, 2014, the Plaintiff terminated the instant contract on November 6, 2012 on the grounds of the Defendant’s illegal operation of the instant center, the unpaid amount of electric water charges, etc. with the consent of a majority of the occupants. The instant contract was not terminated even if the instant contract was not terminated.