1. The defendant shall pay 50,600,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from July 1, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2016, the Defendant entered into an entrustment management contract on the above apartment management services (hereinafter “instant management contract”) between the private enforcement of A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The details relating to the contract cost are as follows.

B. On January 2017, the contract amount under the instant management contract was modified to KRW 28,523,470, KRW 20,975,540, and KRW 15,994,660, in total, KRW 65,493,670, and KRW 20,975,540, and KRW 15,994,660, respectively.

(c)

From October 2016 to September 2017, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for each contract cost (in the event that a management employee’s working allowance was incurred) stipulated in Article 5 of the instant Management Contract at the end of each month. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the amount claimed by the Defendant. However, the details of the contract cost claimed by the Defendant included the retirement benefit reserve.

(d)

Around September 2017, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of a truster under the instant management contract, and the Defendant transferred the instant apartment management business to E Co., Ltd. under the Plaintiff’s accession, and completed the management duties under the instant management contract. At that time, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant apartment management business to E Co., Ltd., and the Defendant’s transfer of the management duties under the instant management contract was KRW 50,604,0

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole theory

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. (1) In determining the cause of the claim, a mandatary may claim advance payment of the expenses incurred in the performance of delegated affairs to the above officer (see Article 687 of the Civil Act), and in a case where advance payment of the expenses remains, barring any special agreement, he/she shall return the expenses to the above officer, unless there is a special agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da227376, Nov. 26, 2015). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the management of the apartment of this case, entrusted by C et al. to the Defendant.