1. The defendant shall bear the management expenses of KRW 1,100,000 against the defendant and the late payment charges of KRW 2,205,870 against the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3:

The plaintiff is a resident of B 103 Dong 202, who is managed by the defendant.

B. In the case of B apartment buildings, parking lots for residents are narrow, one vehicle per household is free of charge, but the second vehicle is required to pay 20,000 won for parking management expenses. While the Plaintiff parked two vehicles, it did not pay KRW 1,100,000 in total from September 2002 to March 2007.

C. The defendant urged the plaintiff to pay parking fees from around 2007. D.

The amount of overdue management expenses and late payment fees shall be KRW 1,100,000 as of May 2015, and the unpaid arrears 2,205,870.

(hereinafter “instant debt”). 2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and its determination

A. The gist of the assertion was three-year statute of limitations for the instant obligation.

B. “Claims stipulated within a period of less than one year” under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, which requires the short-term extinctive prescription of three years, refers to claims that are regularly paid within a period of less than one year (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da25302, Sept. 20, 1996). The management expenses claim for an aggregate building, which is paid every one month, constitutes such claim.

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65821 Decided April 22, 2007). Since parking expenses out of the instant debt accrue in 200,00 won per month, Article 163 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is an obligation to which Article 163 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act applies, and the final occurrence of the said expenses is March 2007, the liability for parking expenses was all extinguished in April 1, 2010, where three years thereafter elapsed, and the late payment charges were all extinguished by prescription.

3. As the Plaintiff did not comply with the principle of free parking for one household as a member of the community, the liability for parking fees imposed on the Plaintiff is extinctive prescription.