1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim that was reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Party status 1) The Plaintiff is a department store A located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si C (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”).

(ii) the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) for the management and operation of sites and buildings;

(2) The Defendant is a sectional owner who owns 312 and 313 square meters of the fourth floor of the instant aggregate building (3.92 square meters of the exclusive ownership area by each store, 3.796 square meters of a corridor, hereinafter the above stores collectively referred to as the “instant store”).

B. The Plaintiff’s management agreement is effective. D, one of the sectional owners of the instant aggregate buildings, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming the return of unjust enrichment by asserting that the amount of management expenses imposed and collected pursuant to the Plaintiff’s management agreement is not reasonable (the return of unjust enrichment by Incheon District Court Decision 2010Na39712). With respect to the effect of the Plaintiff’s management agreement, in calculating the number of written resolution by the sectional owners in accordance with the main sentence of Article 41(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, in calculating the number of sectional owners in accordance with the provision of the main sentence of Article 41(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, if one person owns several sections within the aggregate building, it shall be deemed as one sectional owners. The Plaintiff’s management agreement did not satisfy the quorum because it did not obtain the consent or approval of at least four-fifths of the sectional owners of the instant aggregate building, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s management agreement was invalid. The Plaintiff’s appeal (the District Court Decision 2013Na6254 and the Decision 2017Da217197).