1. From December 2, 2012 to April 2015, the Plaintiff’s real estate stated in paragraph (1) of the attached list against the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2012, the Incheon District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant stores”) owned by the Kabua Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Kabu”) (hereinafter “Kabu”).

The plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the above stores on May 13, 2015 after the successful bid price was paid for each of the above stores in the above auction procedure.

B. Around May 2015, the Defendant, a company, the purpose of which is the management and operation of the 17-1 ground building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Incheon (including each of the instant stores, demanded the Plaintiff to pay, on behalf of the Plaintiff, the delinquent management expenses that were not paid by the car words, etc., the relocating owner of each of the instant stores.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3, 6, 7, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion only succeeds to the obligation related to the section for common use among the delinquent management expenses incurred in relation to each of the stores of this case.

However, according to whether the defendant owns the shares of the defendant company, the management expenses for common areas are imposed differently on the occupants of the building of this case. Such arbitrary management expenses are illegal in violation of the principle of equality, and some of the delinquent management expenses obligations incurred in relation to each of the stores of this case are extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription. Thus, there is no part of the delinquent management expenses obligations for each of the stores of this case succeeded

B. According to Article 9(3) of the Defendant’s Management Rules amended by a legitimate resolution of the Defendant’s general meeting of shareholders on March 27, 2012 and a legitimate resolution of the Defendant’s board of directors, the Defendant imposed management fees on the sectional owners of each of the instant buildings.

Attached Form

With respect to the stores listed in paragraph 1 of the list, from December 2012.