beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.12 2016가단35806

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff KRW 2,00,000 and against the Defendant B, from September 27, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B is the representative director of H Co., Ltd., which has F Co., Ltd. and G Co., Ltd. as affiliates; Defendant C is the above Defendant A’s driver under the control of H Co., Ltd.; Defendant D is the chief of the management department of “J” in the 15th and the 6th underground floor underground of the building I (hereinafter “instant building”) under F Co., Ltd.; Defendant E is a person in charge of the selection of the entrusted management company of the instant building under the jurisdiction of G Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff was the chief of the management office of K Co., Ltd. entrusted with the management of the instant building.

B. The instant building, located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City L, was completed in around 2010 by enforcement and construction by M&A and G Co., Ltd., an affiliate company of H Co., Ltd., but a considerable number of residential apartmentss were unsold and used on the 5th and the 6th floor of the underground parking lot designated for apartment residents.

C. Meanwhile, around October 2015, the council of occupants' representatives decided to restrict the use of the side of the commercial building on the underground parking lots designated as apartment units by the council of occupants' representatives, which was composed of apartment sales increased, and limited the entry of the 5th and the 6th floor of the underground parking lot in the commercial building through the management office.

At around 13:00 on November 18, 2015, Defendant B, the director of the management office of the building of this case in the management office located on the third floor of the building of this case, for the reason that the Plaintiff, who is the director of the management office of the building of this case, installed a breaker in the underground parking lot by unilaterally disregarding the apartment occupant, and restricted the access of the company using the commercial, by unilaterally taking advantage of the apartment occupant, the Plaintiff was found to resist and resist the Plaintiff in order to resist it.