1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) The Plaintiff is a management body comprised of all sectional owners under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) for the management and operation of a site and a building of A located in Bupyeong-si, Seocheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant aggregate building”). The Plaintiff has managed the instant aggregate building and imposed and collected management fees on the occupants.

(2) The Defendant is a sectional owner who owns 432 and 433 of the instant condominium 3 floors (4m2, 3.3957m2, each of the exclusive ownership areas, hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”).

B. (1) One of the sectional owners of the instant condominiums filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking return of unjust enrichment by asserting that the amount of management expenses imposed and collected pursuant to the Plaintiff’s management agreement is not reasonable (the Incheon District Court Decision 2010DaGa39712) by asserting that the amount of management expenses imposed and collected pursuant to the Plaintiff’s management agreement was not reasonable.

In the above case, in calculating the number of written resolution of sectional owners in accordance with the provision of Article 41 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, in relation to the validity of the plaintiff's management body agreement, the court shall calculate the number of sectional owners in calculating the number of written resolution in the aggregate building, if one person owns several sections within the aggregate building, it shall be regarded as one sectional owners. The plaintiff's management body agreement did not meet the quorum due to the plaintiff's failure to obtain the consent or approval of more than 4/5 of the sectional owners of the aggregate building in this case,

On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed (the Incheon District Court 2013Na6254) and filed an appeal (the return of unjust enrichment) (the return of unjust enrichment by 2014Da72197). However, both appeals and appeals were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 21, 2015.

(2) The instant condominium does not have management regulations that are in force in the present.

C. The instant condominium structure is the instant case.