1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C and Defendant D jointly and severally notify the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) of KRW 38,112,560 and the amount pertaining thereto.

1. Basic facts

A. The building of five stories above ground and two stories above ground was completed in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, in 1974, and the 2 to five stories above ground are composed of 40 households of apartment, 1 stories above ground, 1 stories below ground and 2 stories below ground (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. The first floor and the first underground floor of the instant shopping mall consisting of 100 stores, and the second underground floor consisting of underground Fhos, Ghos, H and machinery rooms, corridors, toilets, etc. The Plaintiff is performing management duties as a management body of the instant shopping mall.

C. On November 29, 1988, Defendant C acquired shares of 1389.43/1475.38 of underground G units (1,270.94 square meters, 16.14 square meters in a rooftop, and 188.30 square meters in a machine room) and Defendant D leased the underground G units and used them as a private house or facility.

Based on the management rules enacted on December 1, 2001, the Plaintiff imposed the management expenses for the instant commercial building on the basis of the management rules enacted on December 1, 2001, setting the payment deadline for each month as 17 days corresponding to the area of each commercial building. The Defendants paid the management expenses for underground subparagraph G until December 2014, but did not pay the total of 38,112,560 won for the management expenses and overdue interest from January 201 to May 2016.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 8, Evidence Nos. 9-1 through 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments No. 1

2. Determination:

A. (1) As to the Plaintiff’s claim for management expenses against the Defendants, the Defendants asserted that the management rules that served as the basis for the imposition of management expenses cannot be recognized, and that the specific grounds for the calculation of management expenses cannot be known, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

(2) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the management rules on the instant commercial building (Evidence A8) have become invalid due to procedural defects, etc. in the process of the enactment, and the merchants of the instant commercial building, including the Defendants, have asserted the validity of the management rules for the period from December 1, 2001, to the filing of the instant lawsuit from December 1, 2001 to the filing of the instant lawsuit.