손해배상(기) 등
1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:
Plaintiff
A. The council of occupants' representatives (hereinafter referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives") is the council of occupants' representatives comprised of 834 households of A apartment in Kimhae-si (hereinafter referred to as the "instant apartment"), and the plaintiff B is the former president of the council of occupants' representatives by January 2015.
From September 1, 2011 to September 22, 2013, Defendant D was dispatched from the Korea-based limited company that had been entrusted by the management company at the time to September 22, 2013, and served as the managing director of the instant apartment; Defendant E was a person who served as the general director of the Plaintiff’s representative council from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013; Defendant F was a person who served as the representative of the Plaintiff’s representative council from August 23, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
2. The corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defense of this case is the same.
(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 3. Judgment on the merits
A. The plaintiffs' claim 1) The defendant D's assertion that the amount of the national pension's workplace burden on the defendant D is equivalent to the amount of the national pension's workplace burden on the defendant D, although he did not correspond to the person subject to the public official pension's employee status as the person subject to the national pension's employee status, as if he were the person subject to the national pension's employee status, he received 2,841,360 won a sum of 118,390 won per month from September 201 to September 24, the service period of the plaintiff's council of occupants' representatives, and suffered losses equivalent to the above amount. Thus, it is obligated to return the above amount to the plaintiffs for compensation or unjust enrichment. 2) According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments in the evidence No. 2, the defendant D's representative council did not have any obligation to pay the national pension's workplace burden on the plaintiff's resident status council, even if he was employed as the head of the management office of the apartment in this case.