2. G:

3. C

4. D.

5. E.

6. F;

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant Q Q

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant B, G, C, D, and F and all claims against the defendant E are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, G, C, D, and F shall bear the remainder, and the remainder shall be borne by the same Defendants, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant E shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff acquired ownership on July 30, 2001 after receiving a successful bid for a swimming pool (hereinafter “instant store”) in X-Embstel (the underground second floor, the ground 17th floor, and hereinafter “the instant officetel”) located in Busan-dong, Seosan-dong, Busan-dong, through the compulsory auction procedure for a compulsory auction and acquired ownership on September 15, 2001.

B. From Jun. 27, 2003, H was in arrears with management expenses and was temporarily divingd on Jun. 5, 2005 with a swimming pool business, and on May 24, 2005, management expenses in arrears were KRW 86,567,280. The officetel management expenses in this case were accumulated on May 24, 2005, and the supply of urban gas to the instant officetel was suspended, Defendant B, G, C, D, F, etc., who is the operating member of the Officetel management committee in this case, shall hold a steering committee and notify the delinquent office of the payment of the management expenses in arrears; the office manager in this case shall be notified of the payment in arrears; the office manager in this case shall be notified of the fractional management expenses in this case; the office manager in this case shall be notified of the fractional management expenses in this case; the office manager in this case shall be notified of the fractional management expenses in this case and the office manager in this case shall be notified to the user in this case by 10.5.

E. On November 206, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the instant store immediately after the lessee, and requested Defendant B, the representative of the Operating Committee, to continue the swimming pool business or lease to a third party, to suspend a short or short supply, but the short supply of a short supply or short supply was continued on the ground that he did not pay delinquent management expenses, and the instant store was sold to the third party.

F. Meanwhile, on December 1, 1992, 52 among the 73 persons holding the instant officetels, the instant officetel management rules (hereinafter “the instant management regulations”) were established with the consent of all the above members present, and were organized within the management body to promote efficiency in managing and operating the instant officetel pursuant to Article 4 of the instant management regulations. On April 25, 2005, the instant officetel management rules (hereinafter “the instant management rules”) enacted the instant officetel management rules, which were enforced from June 1, 2005, and was signed by 55 of the owners or users of the instant officetels from among the 107 persons holding the instant officetels or users until August 10, 2005. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18740, Apr. 25, 2005>

G. Article 16(2) of the instant Management Rules provides that "When a tenant fails to pay the management expenses, 5% overdue interest shall be added from the date of the final payment to the date of one month, 10% overdue interest shall be added from the two months to the date of the final payment, and 2 months shall not be paid, and a fractional or fractional measure may be taken." Article 39(2) and (3) of the instant Management Rules provides that "a management authority may issue a demand notice separately setting a deadline for payment within 20 days if the tenant, etc. fails to pay the management expenses, etc. for more than one month. Even after the management authority issued a demand notice, the household that has failed to pay the management expenses, etc. may suspend the supply of water and electricity."

[Ground of Recognition] A1, 2, 3-1, 2, 4-1, 2, 6-1, 7-1 through 8, 2, 5-1, 2-1 through 4, 5-1 through 5, 12-1 through 5, 14-1, 14-2, 15-1 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B, G, C, D, and F

A. Occurrence of damages liability

According to the above facts, the Office of Operation of the Office of the instant case pursuant to the management regulations of this case

In addition, it is unclear whether the internal organization established within the management body has the authority to decide on any important matter such as a power outage or a fractional measure, and it is also unclear whether the management body has the authority to do so, and the above Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the fractional measure of this case on the ground that the fractional measure of this case has not been 20 days from the date of notification in violation of the procedure set forth in Article 39(2) of the Management Rules (Article 39(2) and notified the payment deadline for delinquent management expenses by designating the date of notification as the payment deadline for the fractional measure of this case, and thus obstructing the Plaintiff’s use and profit. A fractional measure is a serious measure to fundamentally block the exercise of the right to operate the store occupant, and the Plaintiff’s continued suspension from June 11, 2005 to November 206, 206, considering the fact that the fractional measure of this case continues to be valid for 17 months or more from the date of suspension.

B. Limitation on liability

According to the above evidence, even if the plaintiff knew of the fact that the management expenses for the instant store were in arrears for a reasonable period of time upon receipt of the notice from the Officetel operating committee of this case, he neglected to endeavor to reasonably resolve the problem of delinquent management expenses, which directly caused the instant dispute, and neglected to assert that the Officetel operating committee of this case is not qualified as a managing body, and intended to exercise only his right. Such mistake by the plaintiff is a cause for the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the above tort, and thus, it is reasonable to consider the amount of compensation for the plaintiff in determining the amount of compensation for the damages. In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to consider the rate of the plaintiff's negligence as 40%, and thus, the liability of the defendant B, G, C, D, and F is limited to 60% of the total damages.

(1) Loss equivalent to rent

The period during which the Plaintiff’s use and profit-making was restricted due to the above illegal acts by Defendant B, G, C, D, and F shall be from June 1, 2005 when the Plaintiff sold the instant store from June 11, 2005 when taking a single measure to November 20, 206.

In addition, the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s failure to use or take profits from the store of this case is equivalent to the rent for the store of this case. In full view of the appraiser S’s appraisal result, it can be recognized that the rent for the store of this case was 4.1 million won per June from June 12, 2005 to June 11, 2006. Since it is confirmed that the rent for the store of this case was the same amount, it is confirmed that the sum of monthly rent from June 11, 2005 to November 20, 2006 is 69,70,000 won (4,100,000 won x17 months, x17 months as requested by the Plaintiff, and as requested by the Plaintiff, the sum of damages is 41,820,000 won (6,709,000 won) in consideration of the Plaintiff’s fault ratio.

(2) Appropriateness of the claim for solatium

The plaintiff claimed consolation money of KRW 25,00,000 on the premise that he had suffered a considerable mental pain due to the suspension or suspension of the case, but generally, in the event that a property right was infringed due to a tort by another person, the mental suffering is recovered from the compensation for the property damage. In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an irrecoverable mental suffering due to the compensation for the property damage. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-determination

Accordingly, Defendant B, G, C, D, and F have the obligation to pay each of the above Defendants with 41,820,00 won damages for each of the above Defendants from June 14, 2006 to the day following the delivery date of the instant payment order or the written application for payment order, which was the date of the above illegal acts, to the Plaintiff. Defendant C, from April 21, 2006 to April 22, 2006, Defendant C, from April 2006, Defendant D, from April 20, 2006, Defendant F, from June 14, 2006 to June 14, 2006, which is recognized as reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the above Defendants’ obligations to implement this case, 5% per annum from the day following the date of the Civil Act until April 24, 2008, and 20% per annum from the day of full payment.

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against defendant E

The Plaintiff also claimed KRW 94,700,000 in total amount of damages and consolation money equivalent to the above rent, on the premise that Defendant E participated in the resolution of the instant short circuit or fractional measure, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant E participated in the instant tort, such as attending the Steering Committee on May 27, 2005 and passing a resolution of the fractional measure against the instant store, etc., and there is no reason to believe that Defendant E participated in the instant tort.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant B, G, C, D, and F are accepted in part within the scope of the above recognition, and the claims against the defendant E are dismissed as they are without merit.

Judges fixed-term

Judge Jina decoration