손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added a “additional Judgment as to the issue of 2. '2.' as to the argument emphasized by the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. The plaintiff asserts that the council of occupants' representatives has the right to claim damages due to excessive payment of the water fee, as the main reason for appeal is that the determination and imposition of the total water rate are made for the apartment as a whole, and that the council of occupants' representatives pays the water rate to the water-supply facility.
As stated in the first instance court, the payer of the water rate in multi-family housing is an occupant, and when the water rate has been overpaid or erroneously paid or unpaid, the subject of the ownership of the rights and duties (debt obligation) are also individual occupants.
Even if the notice of the water rate is issued in the name of the council of occupants' representatives, this is only for the full payment of the water rate on behalf of all the occupants for convenience based on the relevant statutes, and it cannot be deemed that the council of occupants' representatives becomes the subject of the payment of the water rate, or has the claims and obligations related to the payment
In this case, the subject who paid excessive water rate should be deemed to have been the occupants of apartment houses and the damages therefrom also occurred to the individual occupants. Therefore, the right to claim damages shall belong to the individual occupants, and no other ground exists for the plaintiff to exercise the above right to claim damages.
Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot claim damages due to excessive payment of water rates.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.