1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an organization that is composed of the buyers of the J shopping district from the first to the second floor above the ground level constructed on the ground of the first floor above the second floor of the ground level in the prime city of Kuju, E (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) with the purpose of managing, maintaining, repairing the shopping district and promoting friendship among merchants.

B. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff was a sectional owner (the date of acquisition of ownership: August 29, 2014) of the second floor of the instant shopping mall 1, and reported occupancy (the name of the store D and C) to the Defendant on September 26, 2014, and became the Defendant’s member, and suspended the business on November 30, 2015, and withdrawn from the Defendant.

C. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay management expenses incurred between December 1, 2015 and April 30, 2016 to KRW 4,393,310 and arrears KRW 174,370.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 10 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is limited to the merchants’ association based on Article 65 of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts, not the manager of the instant commercial building, and the Plaintiff discontinued its business on November 30, 2015 and withdraws from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is not entitled to impose management expenses from December 1, 2015 on the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant is entitled to impose management expenses from December 1, 2015, even if there is a right to impose management expenses from December 1, 2015, the Defendant is not obligated to bear management expenses up to the portion unrelated to the building management. Thus, there is no obligation for the Plaintiff, which is only a sectional owner, who is not a member of the merchants’ association, to the extent that the Defendant is not a member of the merchants’ association.

B. The defendant's assertion falls under ① management body or manager under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings Act") or ② management of the commercial building of this case which is an aggregate building.