1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the owner of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon A apartment No. 102 Dong 204 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and the plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives of the above A apartment.

B. From January 2012 to November 201, 2013, the Defendant did not pay management expenses for the instant apartment from January 2012, and the aggregate of the management expenses and late fees in arrears is KRW 804,910.

C. Meanwhile, the provisions of the Housing Act relating to the payment of management expenses are as follows.

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

12. The term "occupant" means any of the following persons:

(c) In cases of Articles 42 through 45, 55 and 59: The owner of the house, or his/her spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant representing the owner; 13. The term "user" means a person, etc. who leases and uses the house;

Article 45 (Payment, Disclosure, etc. of Management Expenses, etc.) (1) Residents and users of the collective housing falling under Article 43 (1) shall pay management expenses incurred in the maintenance and management of the collective housing to the management entity.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, inasmuch as there is no person who leases and uses the apartment of this case, which is a multi-family housing, the Defendant, the owner, is liable to pay management fees and late payment fees to the Plaintiff and damages for delay.

3. As to the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not have a duty to pay management expenses to the plaintiff since he could not use or benefit from the apartment of this case since he illegally occupied the apartment of this case.

The key to the apartment of this case was left to the guard room on the ground that the former lessee C, around December 201, was removed from the apartment of this case and the defendant was not contacted. The parties did not have any dispute.