1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, the appointed party) and the appointed party C respectively are as follows: KRW 8,306,778, respectively, and the Plaintiff on December 23, 2016.

1. The determination of the cause of the principal claim is a prosperity association comprised of shop occupants, such as the sectional owners of the building in Ansan-si A (hereinafter “instant building”) in Ansan-si, and is in charge of the maintenance, preservation, facility management, facility management, security management, cleaning and hygiene management, and environmental management of the instant building.

On December 24, 2012, the Defendants acquired the ownership of No. 701 of the 7th floor of the instant building (the first purpose of this use is to change the structure illegally to 13 parking lots, dwellings or offices; hereinafter “instant building”) at the ratio of 1/2 shares, respectively.

The Plaintiff imposed a total of KRW 18,772,556 on the instant building from January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2016, which was after the Defendants received delivery of the instant building from the former occupant D.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff agreed to deduct KRW 2,159,00,000, which was paid by the Defendants in the course of delivering the instant building to all occupant D from the management expenses to be borne by the Defendant.

【Unless any special circumstance exists, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 23, 2016 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the application form for the purpose of claim and modification of the claim in this case, and for delay damages calculated from December 23, 2016 to the date of complete payment, barring any special circumstance.

2. Determination as to the defendants' assertion and counterclaim

A. The summary of the assertion 1 is that the Plaintiff maintained measures, such as cutting-out water, etc. against all occupant D even after the Defendants acquired the building of this case constitutes a tort as an obstruction to the use of the building of this case. Thus, the Defendants did not bear the responsibility to pay management expenses incurred during the above period. Rather, the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendants.