1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 21,962,570 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall be fully repaid from March 12, 2014.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is obligated to return the above money in tort damages or unjust enrichment, as the Plaintiff did not accumulate 34,456,800 won among the long-term repair appropriations received by the occupants from August 2008 to October 209 for the period from August 15, 2009, among the long-term repair appropriations received by the occupants, the Defendant spent the above money for other general or personal purposes. 2) In full view of the provisions of Articles 47 and 51 of the Housing Act, Article 63 of the Housing Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, Article 26, and Article 30 of the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act, the management entity of apartment complexes established the long-term repair plan for common areas, collect the long-term repair appropriations necessary for replacing and repairing major facilities of apartment houses in accordance with the long-term repair plan, and the use of the long-term repair appropriations shall be performed between the contractor and the contractor, and when it uses the funds for the purpose and purpose of the strict appraisal of the above provision.