1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was from January 2008 to July 2015, the Defendant operated the active fish selling place in 132 and 133 among the first floor of a building A located in Suwon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”).

However, in the case of the above 132 (hereinafter “instant store”), the Defendant paid only the management expenses for the “general management expenses” and the “payment” items, which are imposed when the business is suspended while operating the normal business, and did not pay the management expenses for the same items as those imposed when operating the normal business.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the above amount of money equivalent to the total management expenses as stated in the attached Form 2,246,224 won without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant should return the amount equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

2. In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (if the number is available, each number is included), and the purport of testimony and the whole pleadings of witness D of the trial party, the plaintiff, as an organization organized for the management of the building of this case, collects management expenses from the shop merchants of the first floor, and where electricity and water are used for the first floor of the building of this case, the plaintiff imposed management expenses on each floor of the building of this case according to the actual usage, and the remaining management expenses are imposed on a specific amount in proportion to the average number of each shop. In the case of a store under suspension of business, only the general management expenses and the management expenses for the items of "benefit" are imposed. The defendant owned or leased the store of this case from Jan. 208 to Jul. 2015, 200 the fact that the plaintiff paid only the management expenses for "general management expenses" and the management expenses for the items of "payment".

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the statements in subparagraph 1-8 of Nos. 1 to 8 and the testimony of witness D of the trial party: 1.