1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant, without legitimate authority, manages the Suwon C Officetel in Suwon-si without the authority, and even though the above officetel does not fall under a building that requires mandatory accumulation of the long-term repair appropriations, it is required to collect the long-term repair appropriations through the management rules or the resolution of the management body meeting, the defendant unfairly collected the long-term repair appropriations from the sectional owners, including the plaintiff, without any legal basis until now.

At present, the defendant asserted that on September 28, 2016, the defendant concluded a contract with the above officetel management body D through the manager D elected at the management body meeting of the above officetel and returned the long-term repair appropriations to the management body, but the above management body meeting's appointment resolution does not take effect due to procedural defects, and the defendant did not return it to the legitimate manager.

(A) In order to dispute the validity of the above resolution, the Plaintiff filed a provisional disposition against D to allow access to the documents related to the management body meeting as the Suwon District Court 2016Kahap10275, and D refuses to comply with the decision, despite the acceptance of the above application on December 8, 2016. Furthermore, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the management body meeting’s resolution against the above officetels management body as 2017Kahap1431. Therefore, the Defendant shall return the long-term repair appropriations for the instant officetels 204 and 204-1, which were unfairly collected from the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, and the delay damages therefrom as unjust enrichment.

2. The determination system imposes an obligation to return unjust enrichment on the benefiting party based on the principle of fairness and justice in a case where the benefiting of the benefiting party did not have a legal cause. However, if the benefiting party does not have a substantial interest, the return obligation cannot be imposed

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332, Sept. 8, 201). We examine the case, and the Defendant owned the Plaintiff.