관리비
1. In accordance with the claim of the main lawsuit that was changed in exchange at the trial, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is seven million won against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
1. The plaintiff filed a principal lawsuit against the defendant, and the defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff for the payment of management expenses, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing both the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and only the plaintiff appealed against this, the counterclaim was excluded from the judgment, and the plaintiff was excluded from the counterclaim. The plaintiff selected at the trial court by adding the claim for damages based on tort (Embezzlement) and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment based on the cancellation of the agreement, and withdrawn the claim for the agreed amount. Thus, the judgment of the court below is limited to the selective claim.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. From October 20, 2008 to October 20, 2013, the Plaintiff, who owned 45 Seoul Special Metropolitan City, including the Defendant, operated the Fitice Center with the lease of 5-200 square meters underground (hereinafter “instant store”) at the 45 Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu level 5-200 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”). However, the Plaintiff was unable to conduct normal business such as delinquency in rent and management expenses due to business deterioration around 2010.
B. On May 20, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming management expenses against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Northern District Court 2010da54112 (hereinafter “instant prosperity”). On May 20, 201, the said court rendered a judgment without holding any pleadings against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 20,016,170 to the instant prosperity and delay damages, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On July 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the delivery of a store (Seoul Northern District Court 201Gadan33891) from the Defendant who was appointed as the appointed party on behalf of the lessor as one of the co-owners of the instant store. On October 10, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw the lawsuit for the delivery of the said store with the Defendant on October 10, 201 by seeking a new lessee of the same type of business while the lawsuit is pending, and paid all overdue rents, etc. to the Defendant, excluding management expenses, upon settling the settlement following the termination of the lease agreement.
However, this case.