1. The Defendant’s KRW 215,79,370 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 11, 2013 to March 30, 2016.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of managing a building A (which was composed of a store, officetel, and neighborhood living facilities; hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") of the five underground floors and the eight above ground floors located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

From February 8, 2012 to February 8, 2015, the Defendant was in office as the Plaintiff’s internal director (the only internal director from February 8, 2012 to October 27, 2013). Meanwhile, from March 9, 2011 to March 8, 2013, the Defendant was in office as the chairperson of the Amerial Self-Governing Committee established with the sectional owners of the instant building as the members of the instant sectional owners (hereinafter “Amerial Self-Governing Committee”).

The Plaintiff’s acquisition of each of the instant stores, which was the seller of the instant building, received the nine intermediate payments from the buyer of the instant building, out of the sales price, as the development cost.

On the other hand, Article 2(1) of the Sales Contract for the Commercial Building among the buildings of this case provides that "if the Special Self-Governing Association requests the return of the development costs, it shall be transferred to the Special Self-Governing Council, as a collection fee to cover the promotion and activation of the commercial building."

Before the appointment of a manager under Article 24 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings") on April 24, 2006, KTW entered into an entrustment management contract with a commercial autonomy council, which is designated as the management entity of the building of this case. On April 27, 2006, the sales contract transferred approximately KRW 10.1 billion in the balance of development costs to the commercial autonomy council.

On April 25, 2006, the commercial autonomy council concluded an entrustment management contract with the Plaintiff to select the Plaintiff as the management entity of the building of this case before the appointment of the management entity under Article 24 of the Multi-Family Building Act, and the Plaintiff’s funds necessary to manage the building of this case.