관리인 해임 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B management body (hereinafter “Defendant B management body”) is a management body established pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings for the management of the building listed in the 6th underground floor and the 11th floor above ground in Jung-gu, Seoul for the 11st floor (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff is a sectional owner who owns the entire 10th floor, the 11th floor, and the 11st floor among the instant building.
B. Defendant A is a manager appointed at a temporary management body meeting of the instant building on May 14, 2011.
Article 24 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which limits the term of office of a custodian within two years, shall apply to a manager appointed for the first time after June 18, 2013 or for the new term of office in accordance with Article 1 of the Addenda to the Act newly established by Act No. 11555 on December 18, 2012 ( December 18, 2012).
Therefore, the above legal provisions do not apply to Defendant A.
C. Defendant A was indicted for committing a crime of forging private documents, uttering of a falsified private document, fabrication of a private person, or uttering of a falsified private person, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and two years of suspension of execution on July 7, 2016, as Seoul Central District Court 2014 Man-Ma5497, 2014 Man-Ma701 (Joint) and 2015 Man-Ma7149 (Joint).
Defendant A appealed against the above judgment on July 8, 2016 and is currently pending in the appellate trial.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 13 evidence, Eul evidence 35, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
3. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant A committed the following acts while performing his duties as a manager of the building of this case, and violated the duty of reporting and good faith. This constitutes “an unlawful act or other circumstances inappropriate to perform his duties” under Article 24(5) of the Multi-Family Building Act, which is stipulated as the grounds for demanding the removal of the manager.
Therefore, Defendant A should be dismissed from the administrator of Defendant A’s management body.
(1)