1. The Defendant: KRW 24,732,992 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from September 26, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

The plaintiff is a company that vicariously executes real estate management, and the defendant is a management body comprised of sectional owners of A (hereinafter referred to as the "instant building") in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. From 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract for the management of the instant building (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the management fee of KRW 4,000 (in the event of multiplying the total area of KRW 2,264.27 square meters each month by the total area of KRW 9,057,080) (hereinafter “the instant contract”) with A prosperity or the Defendant, and completed the entrusted management of the instant building on July 31, 2015.

2. The Defendant asserts that this case’s defense is unlawful, since this case’s ground for claim is identical to that of this Court No. 2015Da22348 (this Court was cultivated by 2016Da100395), which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant, and this case’s ground for claim is identical.

According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and Eul evidence No. 1, the original defendant agreed that the management expenses shall be determined on a regular basis under Article 5 (3) of the contract of this case, and the personnel expenses for the personnel recruited through consultation under Article 7 shall be decided through consultation. This case is a lawsuit seeking the payment of accounts payable among the fixed amount management expenses under Article 5 (3), and this case is a lawsuit seeking the payment of personnel expenses for the personnel recruited under Article 7, and the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is different from the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case does not constitute a double lawsuit, the defendant's defense of the principal safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, and examine the facts acknowledged earlier, and the defendant shall be the plaintiff.