1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the case’s 3rd “Defendant’s assertion and judgment” part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. Parts to be changed;

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment 1) The defendant asserted the violation of the prohibition principle against re-performance, first of all, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff seeking the payment of unpaid management expenses, but lost the lawsuit, and then withdrawn the lawsuit at the appellate court (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2014Dada District Court 168951, Seoul East Eastern District Court 2014Na6871), and the plaintiff's subsequent lawsuit of this case is against the prohibition principle against re-performance. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case brought against the defendant and the lawsuit of this case brought by the plaintiff against the defendant (the plaintiff) cannot be deemed the same lawsuit, as it is different from the plaintiff's lawsuit brought against the plaintiff (the plaintiff). Accordingly, the court's decision against the plaintiff, which was entrusted with the duty to claim management expenses, cannot be deemed to violate the prohibition principle against re-performance because the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was brought against the plaintiff's duty to jointly rent the commercial building by the time of the plaintiff's exemption of the management expenses. Accordingly, the above defendant's argument is without merit.