1. The plaintiff's appeal and the main claim that the court changed in exchange are dismissed.

2. Filing an appeal;

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment

With respect to the primary claim (claim for Reimbursement of Expenses due to Management of Affairs), the Plaintiff, as a co-owner of F separate owners, disbursed construction costs for modernization of the worn F separate owners for the Defendant, who is another co-owner, and continued the construction of the instant case.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 739(1) of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to repay the construction cost already paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1,368,783,500 x 1/2 - 35,000 x 35,000).

Even if the Plaintiff paid expenses against the Defendant’s will, the Plaintiff’s construction work of this case increased from KRW 311,129,150 as of June 2, 2005 to KRW 872,637,670 as of February 4, 2016, to KRW 561,508,520 under Article 739(3) of the Civil Act (i.e., KRW 872,637,670 - KRW 311,129,150) to KRW 561,520 under Article 739(3) of the Civil Act.

Judgment

In order to recognize the right to claim reimbursement of expenses by the office manager under Article 739 of the Civil Code, the fact that the office manager paid necessary or useful expenses on behalf of the principal should be recognized.

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the only evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone corresponds to the F separate construction cost paid out of the Plaintiff’s personal funds, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The main claim of this case is without merit without examining the remainder.

The reason why the court stated this part of the preliminary claim is that "five 15 % of the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance" is a transaction method of the corporation.