1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Steering Committee is the managing body of Btel, which is an aggregate building in Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

B. At the same time, the Plaintiff, as the actual manager for some households, including the instant officetels 505 and 613 at the same time, was in charge of the Defendant Steering Committee’s members.

C. Defendant C is the owner of the instant officetel 503, and on December 1, 2012, the term of work between the Defendant Steering Committee and the Defendant’s Steering Committee from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2013, concluded a labor contract with the monthly salary of KRW 1,456,170, and performed the duties of the Director of the Management Office during the said period.

On December 1, 2014, Defendant D entered into an employment contract with Defendant D with the term of labor from December 1, 2014 to November 30, 2015, with the monthly salary of KRW 1,551,000, and performed the duties of the Director of the Management Office for the said period.

E. Defendant E is the owner of the instant officetel 917, and is the president of the Defendant Steering Committee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 55, 49, Eul evidence No. 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Steering Committee

A. The Defendant Steering Committee for the Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount out of the transport expenses for the Plaintiff’s attendance at the Committee, the total of the transport expenses, telephone charges, and other expenses incurred by the Plaintiff while filing a complaint with Defendant C, D, E, etc., to KRW 2,318,293, and delay damages therefor.

B. First of all, we examine the unpaid amount out of the transportation cost claimed by the Plaintiff for the attendance of the commission.

The fact that the plaintiff was in charge of the operating committee members of the defendant steering committee is as seen above, and in full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6 and the purport of the whole arguments, the defendant steering committee has paid 20,000 won to the operating committee members present at the committee.