손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants: 500,000 won to each of the Plaintiffs, Defendant C, D, F, and G are 1,00,000 won to each of the Plaintiffs, respectively.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) Insan-si, the circumstances of the instant case are as follows: A member-gu H, 1st underground, and 6th floor I’s prosperity (representative J and hereinafter referred to as the “SI’s prosperity”).
[Attachment] K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) for two years from December 5, 2012 to December 4, 2014.
A) A concluded an entrusted management contract with the International Council of Representatives (the representative A and the occupant representative A) around November 2014, which was prior to the expiration of the contract. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff A, who was the first occupant, who was dissatisfied with the duties of the ordinary Council of Representatives and the Director of the Management Office, was the council of occupants’ representatives around November 14, 2014.
A) Around December 5, 2014 to December 4, 2016, K established an entrusted management contract with K. The term “I Management Body” (representative J and hereinafter referred to as “Management Body”) under the name of the management body around November 20, 2014.
Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant G”)
From December 5, 2014 to January 31, 2017, K continued to engage in the business without leaving the management office based on the contract with the occupant representative, even after the expiration date of the contract with the prosperity association. The management office and the Defendant G claimed legitimacy and the dispute arose between the two parties. Defendant C is the prosperity auditor, Defendant D’s husband, Defendant C’s husband, Defendant F’s manager dispatched from Defendant G, Defendant F is the former manager of Defendant G, and Plaintiff B entered the management office of Defendant G and dispatched from the K, and the Defendants were unable to start the management office of Defendant C, D, E, F, and F’s residence intrusion and business obstruction, and Plaintiff B did not start the management office of the Plaintiff’s building at around 10, 2014. < Amended by Act No. 12817, Dec. 17, 2014; Act No. 12938, Dec. 17, 2014>
Defendant E, after having left the windows due to a dynasium, through windows with the help of Defendant F and C.