1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

2...

1. According to the following: (a) whether a lawsuit is lawful; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 3, 3, 6, 13, 15, and 20; and (c) the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the defendant is the owner of sectionally owned building Nos. 65 of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”); (c) the plaintiff leased and used the instant commercial building from the defendant around November 201, 2014; (d) C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) managed C including the instant commercial building; (c) the plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the non-party company between May 26, 2015 and February 1, 2017; and (d) the non-party company did not exercise the right to the loan on behalf of the non-party company that was paid the electricity, elevator safety management expenses, and the amount of the loan on behalf of the non-party company.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the non-party company is in a situation where the responsible property (affirmative) is insufficient to satisfy the creditor's preserved claim, and therefore, it is also necessary to preserve the non-party company as insolvent.

The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim does not meet the requirements of creditor's subrogation right is illegal is without merit.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s amount of the Defendant’s obligation to pay management expenses is sought from May 2008 to November 201, 2014 from the Defendant, and the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is considered as to this.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant, unless there are special circumstances, shall be excluded from the defendant.