1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that the Defendant owns Nos. 15 and 17 underground of the old-si C Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) is not a dispute between the parties.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As to the lawsuit in this case where the plaintiff asserted against the defendant for the payment of unpaid management expenses, the defendant asserts that the "AAA Management Rules," which the plaintiff cited as the basis for his establishment and management expenses, are not made by lawful procedures, and thus null and void. The plaintiff does not fall under the management body or management committee as provided by the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act"), and since D does not fall under the plaintiff's representative elected by legitimate procedures, it is not the plaintiff's representative elected by legitimate procedures, and therefore, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

B. The plaintiff asserts that he has the right to collect management expenses without making clear arguments as to his legal status. However, the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which has the right to collect management expenses, is naturally established by all sectional owners, and there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff is a management body of the commercial building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a management body of the commercial building of this case.

Furthermore, in light of the content of the management rules (Evidence A7) submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff constitutes the management committee prescribed in Article 23 of the management rules, which was enacted at the management body meeting of the instant commercial building, and may be deemed to have filed the instant lawsuit on the premise that the Plaintiff was entitled to collect management expenses pursuant to Article 26(1)17 of the management rules.

However, the above management rules are more than 3/4 of the sectional owners in the management body meeting, which is stipulated in Article 29(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act.