The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff is “A management body,” and G and F were not the ancillary Plaintiff of the instant lawsuit, and did not render any judgment as to G and F’s claim.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by omitting judgment on the conjunctive Plaintiff’s claim, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have managed the instant building before June 7, 2016, and that G and F paid the management expenses incurred in their names after June 7, 2016 cannot be readily deemed to have been paid by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the collection authority of management expenses, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had a claim on unpaid management expenses against the Defendant, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not exercise its right to explanation or did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obligor of electric charges, etc., contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.