beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2017나80684

약정금(관리비)

Text

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The basic facts of the claim (1) The plaintiff is a non-profit foundation for the purpose of building and maintaining and managing a cemetery, and established and operated a cemetery in the early 67 Simri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, (2) The non-party E who is a woman of the non-party D died on October 20, 191; D used the "F" area 8 square-ri-ri from the plaintiff on October 22, 1981 as the burial site; (40,000 won for the cemetery site, five-year advance payment management expenses; (3) there is no significant dispute between the parties to the above cemetery's property and the Incheon Family Court on May 31, 2016; and (4) there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's inheritance No.

2. (1) The plaintiff is obligated to pay the unpaid management expenses of the above grave and damages for delay, according to the above agreement, D is also obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff according to the inheritance ratio. The defendants who are inheritors of D also are also obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff according to the inheritance ratio.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ lawful renunciation of inheritance of D’s property. The Defendants’ defense pointing this out has merit, and ultimately, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(2) Next, the Plaintiff has managed the said grave for the Defendants. The Defendants asserted that they are obliged to pay the Plaintiff money equivalent to the unpaid management expenses in accordance with the legal principles of office management or unjust enrichment.

1. Therefore, 1.