Plaintiff Union (Attorneys Lee Boo-moo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong-Jin General Law Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 30, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gahap19390 Delivered on November 3, 2005

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff which rejected compulsory execution below shall be revoked.

A. On December 1, 2001, 2001, 22294, with respect to compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the defendant against the plaintiff, 1,199,283,759 won and 1,090,260,008 won among them, 5% per annum from December 18, 2001 to October 11, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The compulsory execution against the plaintiff shall be dismissed only for the part exceeding the amount equivalent to 1,199,283,759 won, and 1,090,260,008 won per annum.

B. The defendant's compulsory execution based on the payment order of 429,375,842 won against the plaintiff on September 24, 2002 and 390,342,460 won among them shall be dismissed only in excess of 5% per annum from October 29, 2002 to October 11, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be ten minutes and six minutes shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The execution of the defendant against the plaintiff by the Seoul District Court Order No. 2001Guj2294 decided Dec. 1, 2001, and each payment order No. 2002Guj23345 decided Sep. 24, 2002 shall be denied.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1 through 230, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7 through 10, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1 through 8, Eul evidence 6 through 9, Eul evidence 21-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 26-1 through 29, Eul evidence 29, Eul evidence 30-1, 2, Eul evidence 31-1 through 16, and Eul evidence 32-1 through 65, respectively:

(a) Relations between parties;

around February 1995, the Plaintiff is a juristic person which is established for the purpose of newly building and selling a commercial building of 6th and 15th above ground (hereinafter referred to as “○○ shop”) on the ground of the above land as its members, consisting of the props in the new-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul and 12 lots of land. The Defendant is a juristic person that is established on December 11, 1999 for the purpose of maintaining ○ shop and carrying out the business related to the management and revitalization of commercial buildings, and is in charge of managing ○ shop shops up to now.

B. The process of concluding the Defendant’s establishment and management contract

(1) From September 1996, the Plaintiff: (a) from around 1996, the Plaintiff was performing a new construction work by designating the contractor of ○○ Family as Nonparty 1 Company; (b) the Plaintiff was unable to pay the construction cost at the time to Nonparty 1 Company; and (c) around January 1998, the construction was suspended; and (d) around November 1998, the three-party consultative body was constituted by the representatives of both the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1 Company, and the buyers, and the construction was resumed by a third party agreement; and (e) thereafter, all matters regarding the implementation of the construction work, including the construction, were conducted through consultation with the third party consult.

The Consultative Body 3 on August 27, 199 agreed to establish a management body in order to provide business support services to buyers and to manage ○○ stores, and appoint Nonparty 2 and 3 as a representative director and complete the registration of incorporation.

【Management Rules” and “Management Expenses Calculation and Payment Criteria” have been established following the establishment of the Defendant in accordance with the sales contract after the establishment of the Defendant. The above management rules stipulate that the Defendant’s capital shall be KRW 100 million, but the equity shares shall be appropriated for 60% of the development expenses paid by the buyers. The Plaintiff’s officer shall invest 18%, the Defendant’s full-time officer shall invest 22%, and the amount of development expenses shall be equal to the number of stores by the second to nine stories above ground, and the amount of development expenses shall be transferred without compensation to the next executive officer when the Plaintiff or the Defendant’s executive officer is transferred to the next executive officer in proportion to the number of stores by the second to nine stories above ground, and the amount of the development expenses shall be transferred without compensation to the next executive officer when the Plaintiff or the Defendant’s executive officer is transferred to the next executive officer. In addition, the detailed matters related to the management expenses shall be in accordance with the calculation

When entering into a contract for sale, the buyers prepared and submitted to the Defendant a written statement to the effect that they shall agree to and faithfully comply with the above management rules in accordance with the management contract provisions of Article 12 (the management contract was concluded between the Defendant and the buyer in accordance with the above provisions).

C. The Defendant’s management background

(1) On December 20, 199, the Plaintiff appointed the Defendant as a temporary manager of the development cost paid by the buyer on December 20, 199, notified the Defendant that he was appointed as a temporary manager of the development cost on December 21, 199, and delegated the development cost management. On the same day, the Defendant was designated as a temporary manager of the commercial operation under Article 12(1) of the sales contract and delegated the management of the ○○ commercial operator, and the Plaintiff also agreed to comply with the Defendant’s above management rules.

B. On November 13, 200, the Defendant was designated by the head of the Gu as the superstore manager of the ○ shop with respect to the ○○ shop and performed the management affairs of the ○○ shop. The contents of the affairs are the overall support and management affairs for business activities, such as collecting and resolving customer complaints or consumer complaints, planning advertisement and special events, and planning various facilities such as heating and cooling facilities, mechanical facilities, electric facilities, fire-fighting facilities, etc., inspection, management, and repair affairs for all facilities such as heating and cooling facilities, mechanical facilities, fire-fighting facilities, and postal receipt and distribution affairs for occupants.

D. Provisions on management expenses

(1) The instant management rules

Article 5 (Definitions of Terms)

1. The term “sectional owner” means a person who has the sectional ownership of ○○○ Family on the certified copy of the register;

2. The term "occupant" means a person who occupies the exclusive title of ○○ shopping mall;

Article 8 (Joint Liability)

The liability, such as management expenses, to be borne by the defendant shall be jointly and severally liable to the sectional owner and the lessee.

Article 36 (Contents of Management Expenses, etc.)

1. "A sectional owner, etc." shall bear all the expenses incurred in the management of electricity, water supply and drainage fees, heating and cooling expenses, and electric common areas, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "management expenses") required for the section for exclusive use in accordance with the standards for imposition, and the details of "management expenses" shall be as follows:

(a) All expenses required for maintenance and management, such as heating, cooling, cleaning, facility repair, inspection, repair, remodeling, restoration, removal, etc. of common areas, and all the expenses that can be classified by "sectional owners, etc.";

(b) All the joint costs incurred in conducting joint business and public relations activities;

(c) Expenses for the guidance, broadcasting, exchange, operation and management of convenience facilities for customers and shop occupants;

(d) Expenses for various taxes, public charges, insurance premiums, traffic congestion charges, water or mineral heat costs, etc. concerning the section for common use, etc.;

E. Expenses incurred in the operation of the defendant (the items can be imposed only on a specific store according to the beneficiary burden principle)

(f) All other common expenses incurred in the daily management of the section for common use;

3. Detailed matters such as overdue charges not specified in this management rules shall be subject to the criteria for the calculation and payment of management expenses.

【Calculation of Management Expenses and Payment Criteria

Article 2 (Definition of Management Expenses)

The term "management expenses" means expenses for direct expenses incurred in the area of sales, convenience, duties, officetels, and other general management expenses, direct expenses, indirect expenses, etc. necessary for the maintenance and repair of common facilities necessary for the management of buildings.

Article 5 (Collection of Management Expenses)

(i)Calculation period: from the first day of each month to the last day of the management costs;

2)Standard for Liability: The total amount of the costs notified in the future of the Plaintiff (other than electricity fees) shall be paid first by the Plaintiff, and the cost to be borne by the management team to sales facilities, convenience facilities, business facilities, and officetels shall be imposed in accordance with the method of calculation in comparison with the

(v)Deferred charges: (v)In the event that the unpaid amount has not been paid by the due date, the first month shall be applied by 10 per cent for the unpaid amount, and thereafter the unpaid amount shall be paid by adding 10 per cent to the delinquent amount (including deferred interest) every one month;

【Distribution Contract Form】

Article 16 (Admission Procedures and Management Expenses)

1. The Plaintiff shall notify the buyer at least 30 days (based on the date of delivery) based on the first day of the sales contract, and the buyer shall file an application for the sales contract no later than 15 days from the date he/she wants to do so.

2. The buyer shall, after submitting the documents related to the shop occupants demanded by the Plaintiff, carry out the shop occupants with the shop occupants’ certificate specifying the shop occupants.

3. The buyer shall pay the player management expenses equivalent to the 45-day portion at the time of issuing a certificate of shop occupants to the plaintiff or the person designated by the plaintiff, and the buyer shall bear the management expenses, regardless of whether the designation period has expired.

E. The defendant's imposition of management expenses against the plaintiff

⑴ 원고는 1998. 1. ○○상가의 공사가 중단될 때까지 7, 8층 스낵상가 점포의 분양을 계속하여 등기분양과 임대분양을 모두 합쳐 7층 205구좌, 8층 154구좌를 분양하였는데 그 분양면적의 배정과 해석을 둘러싸고 수분양자들과 원고 사이에 이견이 발생하여 정상적인 입주·영업이 이루어지지 않는 상황이었는바, 이후 ○○상가의 공사가 중단된 후 개최된 위 3자협의체 회의에서는 상호간의 이해관계를 조정하고 합의를 통하여 공사를 계속 진행하도록 하면서 향후 위 스낵상가 문제는 원고가 전적인 책임을 지고 해결하기로 합의하였다.

⑵ 원고는 2000. 7. 21. 임시총회에서 미분양점포 이외에 ① 스낵층(지상 7, 8층) 중 분양이 완료되어 수분양자들에게 소유권이전등기까지 경료되었으나, 아직 입점하지 아니한 점포(이하, ‘스낵층 미입점 점포’라 한다) ② 소유권이전등기를 경료받은 수분양자가 원고에게 점포의 임대를 위임하였으나 아직 세입자를 구하지 못한 점포(이하, ‘임대위임 점포’라 한다), ③ 분양계약은 체결되었으나, 잔금 미납으로 입점이 불허된 점포(이하, ‘잔금미납 점포’라 한다) 등 현재 공실로 되어 있는 점포(이하 ①, ②, ③ 점포를 합쳐서 ‘특이점포’라고 한다)에 대한 관리비도 준공(사용)검사 이전까지는 원고가 납부하되, 준공검사 이후부터는 위 특이점포에 대한 관리비를 수분양자가 납부하도록 한다는 내용의 결의를 하였다.

Article 22(1) of the Act provides that the Plaintiff shall pay all the management expenses for the stores unsold in lots until June 2000, but only the management expenses for the unsold stores unsold in lots shall be paid from that date to November 2000.

⑷ 이후 원고는 ○○상가에 대한 준공검사일인 2000. 12. 30.이 경과하자 그 다음달에 부과된 2000. 12.분부터는 미분양 점포에 대한 관리비도 납부하지 아니하면서 2001. 2. 5. 원고의 이사회를 열어 미분양점포에 대한 관리비는 전기료만 납부하고, 특이점포 중 잔금미납 점포는 관리법인인 피고가 조합 및 계약자의 사전 동의를 구하여 입점자를 선정하여 관리비를 부과하도록 하며, 스낵층 미입점 점포는 잔금납부 및 입점 전까지는 원고가 전기료만 납부하기로 하는 내용의 결의를 하고, 2002. 8.분까지 일체의 관리비를 납부하지 아니하였다.

(f) Details of imposition of management expenses;

(1) The details of management expenses imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff include all management expenses (in the case of a leased store, the management expenses were imposed only before the completion inspection on the ○○ store) for the unsold store and the special store, and in the case of the unsold store and the special store, only the fees for electricity, water, gas, etc. on the unsold store and the common area, unlike the shop where the occupant was located, were imposed (Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant imposed on the unsold store which has not yet been occupied up to the electricity, water, gas, etc. on the exclusive area is not accepted).

⑵ 피고가 원고에게 부과한 관리비와 연체료는, ① 2000. 7.분부터 2001. 10.분까지 16개월분 관리비 1,422,101,814원과 연체료 142,206,933원 합계 1,564,308,747원(이하 ‘이 사건 제1차 관리비’라고 한다), ② 2001. 11.분부터 2002. 8.분까지 10개월분 관리비 715,079,780원과 연체료 71,506,149원 합계 786,585,929원(이하 ‘이 사건 제2차 관리비’라고 한다)인데, 위 기간 동안 ‘미분양 점포’, ‘잔금미납 점포’, ‘임대위임 점포’, ‘스낵층 미입점 점포’별로 부과된 관리비와 연체료 내역은 별표 1, 2의 기재와 같다.

(g) The occurrence and payment order, etc. of disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant;

(1) On December 1, 2001, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order of service costs under Seoul District Court Decision 2001 tea 2294, and on December 1, 2001, the Defendant received the payment order from the above court that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 1,564,308,747 won and 1,422,101,814 won with 25% interest per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment.” The above payment order was served to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2001, but the Plaintiff did not raise an objection within the period of objection, and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Defendant applied for the payment order of service charges of the above court on September 24, 2002 with respect to the secondary management expenses of this case, and on September 24, 2002, the above court ordered the payment order of KRW 715,079,780 per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order of this case was served to the Defendant for the payment order of KRW 25% per annum from the day when the original copy of the payment order of this case was served to the day of complete payment. The above order was served to the Plaintiff on October 28, 2002, but the decision became final and conclusive at that time because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection within the period of objection.

Secondly, the plaintiff dismissed the defendant's representative director and the non-party 2 who was concurrently the plaintiff's president from the partnership and appointed a new president from the partnership.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

가. 원고는 이 사건 청구원인으로, (1) 이 사건 각 지급명령 신청사건에서 피고가 구하고 있는 2000. 7.분부터 2002. 8.분까지의 관리비 중 ① 분양이 완료되어 소유권이전등기까지 경료된 임대위임 점포 및 스낵층 미입점 점포에 대한 관리비는 원고가 아닌 그 점포의 소유자(수분양자)가 그 관리비를 납부할 의무가 있고, ② 원고가 관리비를 납부할 의무가 있는 미분양 점포 및 잔금미납 점포의 경우에도 그에 대한 관리비를 이미 입점이 되어 있는 점포와 같은 수준으로 부과하는 것은 부당하고 입점이 된 점포의 50%의 정도로 부과하거나 아니면 최소한 전기료, 수도세, 가스비 등은 부과해서는 안 될 것임에도 피고가 이를 과다하게 청구하여 위 각 지급명령을 받은 것으로서, 위 각 지급명령은 채무명의로서의 효력이 없어 그에 따른 강제집행은 불허되어야 하고, (2) 또한 원고가 위 각 지급명령에 대하여 이의신청을 하지 못한 것은 당시 원고의 조합장인 소외 2가 피고의 대표이사를 겸하고 있어 피고의 이익을 위하여 고의로 이의신청기간을 도과시켰기 때문이므로 위 각 지급명령에 의한 강제집행은 권리남용 내지 신의칙에 반하는 강제집행으로서 불허되어야 한다고 주장한다.

B. The defendant asserts that the management expenses claimed as each of the payment orders of this case are imposed fairly.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's duty to pay management expenses

A payment order does not take place even if it becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the restriction is not applied to a lawsuit of demurrer against such claim based on the time limit of res judicata (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act). In a lawsuit of demurrer, the hearing of the objection may deliberate and determine on all the claims stated in the payment order. In such cases, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim exists on the part of the creditor, i.e., the defendant in the lawsuit of objection, and the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim shall be deemed to exist on the part of the defendant in the lawsuit of objection, and

(a) Management expenses incurred in managing unsold stores and remaining unpaid stores;

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff, the owner of the unsold store and the remaining unpaid store, has a duty to pay management fees and late payment fees imposed on the above store to the defendant, except in extenuating circumstances.

In regard to this, the plaintiff argued that the management fee should be imposed at the same level as the shop where the tenant has already been located is unfair and it should not be imposed at least 50% of the shop where the tenant has already been located, or at least electricity, water, gas, etc., and so the management fee imposed by the defendant should not be reduced appropriately. However, in light of the contents of the management rules acknowledged earlier, in the case of such a shop, it is deemed that the general management fee and the management fee imposed on the section for common use should be concurrently paid. As seen earlier, in the case of a shop unsold in lots where the defendant remains in a public room, it is recognized that the administrative expenses and the management fee imposed on the section for common use are imposed only on the general management fee and the section for common use, and since there is no data to deem that the management fee imposed as above is excessive, the plaintiff's above assertion

(b) Management expenses for rental stores;

With respect to the management expenses of the entrusted store, when comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff granted all the authority on the lease of the store, and in the case of the above store, the Plaintiff did not perform the duty of good offices, and the store remains in a public room; (b) the Plaintiff paid the management expenses for the leased store up to June 2000; (c) on July 21, 2000, the Plaintiff paid the management expenses for the leased store including the leased store before the completion inspection; (d) the Plaintiff paid the management expenses for the leased store including the leased store at the Plaintiff’s special general meeting until the completion inspection; and (e) the buyer paid the management expenses for the above store after the completion inspection; and (e) the Defendant did not impose the management expenses for the leased store on the Plaintiff from January 201, which was after the completion inspection, until the completion inspection on the leased store, it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay the management expenses for the leased store from January 20, 2000 to the above portion of the management expenses.

다. 스낵층 미입점 점포에 대한 관리비

(1) 피고는 원고가 스낵층 미입점 점포에 대한 관리비를 부담하게 되는 근거에 대하여 다음과 같이 선택적으로 주장하고 있다.

(가) 원고는 원고와 소외 1 주식회사 및 수분양자 대표자로 구성된 3자협의체 회의에서 향후 스낵상가 문제를 자신이 전적인 책임을 지고 해결하기로 약정하였고, 이에 따라 2000. 7. 21. 스낵층 미입점 점포에 대하여도 관리비를 부담하기로 결의하고 실제로 위 점포에 대한 2000. 6.까지의 관리비를 피고에게 지급하였는바, 현재까지 7, 8층 스낵상가 문제가 해결되지 않고 있으므로 원고는 3자협의체 회의에서 약정한 내용에 따라 관 리비를 지급할 의무가 있다.

(B) Article 16 of the sales contract of this case provides that the Plaintiff shall notify the buyer of the sales contract by setting the period of the sales, and that the buyer shall bear the obligation to pay the management expenses, regardless of whether or not the sales contract is made after the lapse of the period, on the premise that the sales contract is issued with the buyer’s application. In this case where the Plaintiff does not have the salesroom due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the buyer, such as not allocating the shop to the buyer, not notifying the buyer or issuing the sales slip, or refusing the buyer’s sales contract actively, even if the buyer acquired the ownership of the shop, the Plaintiff shall be liable to pay the management expenses until the cause attributable to the Plaintiff ceases to exist.

(C) As long as the Plaintiff failed to implement the procedures for salesroom occupants under Article 16 in the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff still occupies the said shop, and the Plaintiff agreed to implement remodeling works for the said shop. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay management expenses.

(2) Determination

(A) Determination as to the assertion that a third-party consultative body is obligated to pay under the agreement

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff agreed to fully assume and resolve the issues of ○○○ Store 7 and 8 at the meeting of the third-party consultative body. However, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff agreed to assume the liability to pay management expenses for the entire store of 7 and 8 floors.

다만 위와 같은 3자 협의체의 약정 내용과 아울러 원고가 2000. 6.분까지는 스낵층 미입점 점포에 대한 관리비를 납부하였던 점, 그런데 2000. 7. 21. 원고의 임시총회에서 스낵층 미입점 점포를 포함한 특이점포에 대한 관리비를 준공검사 이전까지는 원고가 이를 납부하되, 준공검사 이후부터는 위 점포에 대한 관리비를 수분양자가 납부하도록 한다는 내용의 결의를 한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고가 ○○상가의 준공검사 전까지는 스낵층 미입점 점포에 대한 관리비를 부담하기로 약정한 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 원고는 위 약정에 따라 준공검사 이전까지는 위 점포들에 대한 관리비 납부의무를 부담한다고 할 것이다.

(B) Judgment on the assertion that there is a liability to pay management expenses under the sales contract

The testimony of the non-party 4 at the court of first instance is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not have any salesroom due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff (see the judgment of evidence No. 7 and No. 8), and there is no other evidence to recognize it (see the judgment of evidence No. 7 and No. 8), and the sales contract is directly applied to legal relations between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the buyer, and the non-party 4 are liable to pay the management fee for the third party's store in relation to the defendant. Further, under the management rules of this case, the management rules of this case apply to legal relations between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the buyer, and the non-party 4 bear the duty to pay the management fee for the shop owner and the tenant, and therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the management fee for the above third party's store, even if the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the management fee for the above third party's store.

(C) Determination as to the assertion that the Plaintiff still occupies the above store

The defendant's assertion that the testimony of the non-party 4 witness of the first instance trial alone was not completed due to the plaintiff's reasons attributable to it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's assertion was not completed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the sale price is delayed due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff, the seller of a facility, did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, merely because the buyer did not possess his/her shop, and the fact that he/she is the possessor of the facility under the management rules of this case does not bear the obligation to pay the management fee. According to the evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings adopted earlier, the plaintiff is recognized as promoting remodeling construction of the ○○ Store 7 and the 8th floor. However, such circumstance alone does not lead to the plaintiff's obligation to pay the management fee for the ○○○ store 7 and the 8th floor store. Ultimately, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the management expenses to the above stores until December 30, 200, which is the date of the completion inspection of the ○○ Store (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du120, Dec. 30, 200), and there is no obligation to pay the management expenses to the above stores from January 201, 201.

D. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s abuse of right or violation of the good faith principle

The plaintiff's assertion that compulsory execution based on each payment order of this case is against the abuse of rights or the principle of good faith, and thus, shall not be permitted. The plaintiff's assertion that compulsory execution based on each payment order of this case is against the abuse of rights or the principle of good faith shall be exercised in good faith. In light of all the circumstances such as the nature and contents of the right which can be executed by the judgment where the contents of the final judgment are contrary to substantive legal relations, the circumstances leading up to the establishment and execution of the judgment, and the influence of the execution upon the parties, in a case where it is recognized that the execution based on the final judgment is considerably improper and it is obviously against the justice that it is impossible to allow the other party to execute it, the execution can not be permitted as abuse of rights. Thus, the execution obligor can seek exclusion from the execution by the lawsuit of objection (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da32899 delivered on November 13, 201, etc.). This is equally applicable to cases where compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is sought based on the finalized payment order of this case.

4. The reasonable amount among the management expenses that the defendant seeks as the case of application for each payment order of this case.

A. The following facts are calculated when calculating the management expenses and late payment charges that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant in accordance with the judgment under paragraph (3) above.

(1) The portion of the first management expenses (from July 200 to October 2001) of the instant case

(1) Unsold stores shall be from July 200 to October 2001, 200.

Management expenses 382,404,105 won in arrears, 38,239,761 won in arrears

(2) The remainder of the payment shop shall be from July 200 to October 2001.

Management expenses 380,255,416 won in arrears, 38,024,640 won in arrears

(3) From July 200 to December 2000, 2000, the rental delegated stores.

Management expenses 123,617,851 won, late payment charges 12,361,575 won

④ 스낵층 미입점 점포에 대한 2000. 7.분부터 2000. 12.분까지

Management expenses 203,982,636 won in arrears, 20,397,775 won in arrears

(5) Total management expenses 1,090,260,008 won

(6) Total sum of the late payment charge 109,023,751 won.

(7) Aggregate of management expenses and arrears 1,199,283,759 won.

(2) The second management expenses (from November 2001 to August 2002) of the instant case

(1) Unsold stores shall be from November 2001 to August 2002, 202.

Management expenses 231,69,147 won in arrears, 23,166,512 won in arrears

(2) The balance-paid store shall be from November 2001 to August 2002.

Management expenses 158,673,313, overdue charge 15,86,870 won

(3) Total management expenses, 390,342,460 won.

(4) Total sum of 39,033,382 won.

(5) Aggregate of management expenses and late payment fees 429,375,842 won

B. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 1,19,28,759 won in aggregate of management expenses and late payment fees and 1,090,260,008 won in the management expenses as the defendant's claim with respect to management expenses that the defendant seeks as the case of application for payment order of Seoul District Court 2001Da22294, and 1,090,260,008 won in the above management expenses from December 18, 2001 to October 11, 2006, which is the date when the delivery of the original copy of the above payment order of this case was made by the plaintiff, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the following day to the date of full payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, to the date of the above 20% of the management expenses to be paid by the defendant for the above 20% of the management expenses and late payment order of this case from the Seoul District Court 2002 tea23455, and 201.36% of this case.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the other plaintiff is revoked, and the compulsory execution based on each payment order of this case is partially rejected, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)