관리비
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal lawsuit shall be revoked.
The principal lawsuit of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning of the court in this part of the facts of recognition is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the parts which are dismissed or added as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.
The third end line of the judgment of the first instance is that “The Defendant was transferred M around November 16, 1997 when operating L,” “The Defendant agreed to lease a monthly rent of KRW 100,000 to Q Q, and delivered it around November 1, 1996 (al.e., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was transferred the underground FF store from the Plaintiff around that time), and M leased it to M around November 16, 1997, and M discontinued discontinued its operation on August 30, 2010. During the above period, M paid to the Defendant a monthly rent of KRW 100,000 or KRW 20,000 per month.”
The following shall be added to 4 pages of the first instance judgment:
G. At present, R Co., Ltd., which entered into a new management consignment agreement with the management body of the instant building from December 2018, has collected management expenses from around December 4, 2018."The fourth fourth of the judgment of the first instance, "A evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17-2 and 18 (including a serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings."
2. As to the principal lawsuit
A. The gist of the defendant's main defense is that the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff as the representative of the management body of the building of this case without the power of representation is unlawful, since the plaintiff is not the manager legally elected through the meeting of management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act").
Even if the plaintiff claims as an entrusted management company of the building of this case, the plaintiff's claim is unlawful because it is merely a representative, not a "H" of the entrusted management company. At present, R Co., Ltd. is the building of this case.