1.The judgment of the first instance, including the participation of the independent party and the claims expanded in the trial of the party, shall be as follows:

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, and the reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to the claims of the intervenor participating in the party's independent party to the trial, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the 6th and 7th of the judgment of the first instance court: “A plaintiff is still pending in the appellate court (the Busan High Court 2013Nu2679)” means “The above judgment was finalized on August 20, 2014 through an appellate court (the Busan High Court 2013Nu2679) and the final appeal (the Supreme Court 2014du6227).”

(b) 2 of pages 7 and 8;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: “The Plaintiff asserts that, while the Defendant had used and profit from the 186 guest rooms and common areas of the instant building from July 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013, the remainder of management expenses and late payment charges are not paid to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is premised on the fact that the Plaintiff is the managing body entrusted with the authority to impose and collect management expenses or the right to collect charges from the managing body of the instant building, or based on the agreement of July 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant agreement”), the Plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid management expenses and late payment charges, such as the purport of the instant agreement extended in the trial, and then seek reimbursement of the same amount as the return of unjust enrichment.”

C. Class 2 through 5: “(1) The management body of the instant building, claiming that the Plaintiff is not the management body of the instant building: (a) held an extraordinary general meeting on March 31, 2012 and designated the Defendant as an entrusted management body (the period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015) of the instant building; (b) the Plaintiff is no longer a legitimate management body of the instant building after July 1, 2012; and (c) the Plaintiff is not a legitimate management body of the instant building; and (d) even after the Plaintiff was not entrusted with the management of the instant building by a legitimate management body or manager of the instant building.”

(d)Articles 10, 3 through 16: “(a)”;