1. According to the counterclaim that the court changed on an exchange basis, the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant) had to the defendant (the plaintiff) on 74.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim by combining the claims for confirmation of invalidity or termination of the contract of this case and the claims for removal, prohibition of entry, and prohibition of obstruction of business within the building of this case, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim by combining the claims for unpaid management service costs and the claims for electricity fees on behalf of the Defendant. The claims for confirmation of invalidity and the claims for prohibition of entry, prohibition of obstruction of business within the management office of this case were accepted only in the claims for confirmation of invalidity and the claims for prohibition of obstruction of business within the management office of this case, and the remaining claims were dismissed, and the remainder was accepted only in the claims for the payment of the electricity fee of 4,00,000 and the damages for delay were dismissed.

Since the Defendant appealed only the portion of the claim for unpaid management service cost (97,600,000 won and damages for delay thereof) among the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment, and exchanged the lawsuit with the claim for return of unjust enrichment by this court, only the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment among the counterclaim is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a managing body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which consists of all sectional owners of the instant building, (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”).

The defendant is a company established on February 11, 2010 for business purposes, such as multi-family housing management business, water management entrustment business, etc., and the co-defendant D (hereinafter referred to as "D") of the first instance court is a representative (in-house director), and the co-defendant E of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as "E") is a couple.

B. (1) The instant building was completed in around 2002, but the management rules were not separately enacted, and the J actually performed its duties as a manager. On July 8, 2016, J notified the sectional owners of the instant building of the convocation of the management body meeting and was held on July 18, 2016 by the management body meeting (hereinafter “the instant management body meeting”).

(iii) a resolution to appoint E as a receiver;