The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff’s report filed by the superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act was accepted on September 4, 2013, and the Plaintiff acquired the right to impose and collect management fees from the superstore manager of the shopping mall of this case, and that the management fees and late fees imposed by the Plaintiff were lawfully calculated. The Defendant did not interfere with the use of the five-story divided stores of the shopping mall of this case owned by the Defendant and there was no reason to exempt the Defendant from the payment of management fees. The Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of management fees and late fees from September 2013 to May 201

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ownership and management of aggregate buildings and the Distribution Industry Development Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by omitting judgment, without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Supreme Court Decision 2017Da291517291524 Decided July 12, 2018 cited in the ground of appeal is different from this case and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 5, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense against the extinctive prescription, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, based on the following: (a) the period of extinctive prescription for management expenses incurred from September 1, 2013 to October 26, 2013, which was from September 27, 2016 to October 27, 2013, when the original copy of the instant payment order was served; (b) however, the Defendant approved the Defendant’s liability by paying some of the management expenses in arrears on November 29, 2013.

The extinctive prescription of a claim due is to be calculated from the time when the due date became due (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da274904, Apr. 13, 2017). The foregoing legal doctrine applies.