1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the list of 13 pages 2 of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as “attached Form 1”; and (b) the 5-2-3 pages 5 of the judgment of the first instance as “where there is no separate reference, each number shall be included” is the same as the part of paragraph (1) (2) of the judgment of the first instance except that “where there is no separate reference, each number shall be included”. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of paragraph (1) (2-5 pages 13-5 pages 3).

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The defendant is identical to the management body of the commercial building of this case composed of August 4, 2000, and the validity of the service contract of this case extends to the defendant.

The Plaintiff performed the management of the instant shopping district by October 30, 2013, when the instant service contract expired due to the expiration of the contract term, but the Defendant directly collected management expenses from September 2013.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the service cost (the same shall apply to the amount of management fee for the relevant month) of September 2013 and 10.

(2) Even after the termination of the contract term of the instant service contract, the Plaintiff performed management duties stipulated in the instant service contract with respect to the instant commercial building from October 31, 2013 to September 30, 2015, but did not receive service fees.

The Defendant, without any legal ground, gains a profit equivalent to the service price stipulated in the instant service contract, and thereby the Plaintiff sustained the same amount of damages. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the service price during the said period due to the return of unjust enrichment.

(3) The amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the management expenses for the instant commercial building on September 2015 is KRW 13,393,824. The amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid management expenses or management expenses incurred prior thereto is KRW 446,653,656. The Defendant’s electric charges, water charges, and gas charges paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff are KRW 104,374,670 in total.

Therefore, the defendant's unpaid management fee or the defendant.