손해배상(기)
1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows:
Defendant B shall be the Plaintiff 18,675.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the council of occupants’ representatives established pursuant to Article 50(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act for the management of Boan-si A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”). Defendant B was the Plaintiff’s representative from November 2006 to February 11, 201. Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial was dispatched to the director of the management office of the instant apartment from October 2003 to November 15, 201, and was in charge of the management of the instant apartment from November 2003 to November 15, 201.
B. On June 27, 2008, Defendant B, on behalf of the Plaintiff, awarded a contract for the construction of the instant apartment guard room to the Seoul Northern Construction Industry Co., Ltd. for the construction cost of KRW 38,600,000 (excluding value added tax), and entered into an additional contract for the construction cost of KRW 7,300,000 thereafter, paid KRW 50,390,000 in total as the construction cost and value added tax.
(2) In addition, Defendant B paid on behalf of the Plaintiff KRW 12,00,000,00 for the construction cost of fire-fighting and electric facilities in the above guard room to Dong Young-gu Co., Ltd., and the construction cost of KRW 12,00,000 prior to Dong Young-gu.
C. On March 21, 2008, Defendant B, on behalf of the Plaintiff, awarded a contract for the construction cost of the instant apartment in KRW 30,000,00 on behalf of the Plaintiff, and paid the said construction cost in full to D.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 15, 17, 21, Eul's evidence 3 through 6, 8, 9, 11, Eul's evidence 5 and 6 (if there are additional numbers, including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction contract exceeds two million won under the management rules of the apartment of this case is concluded through open competitive bidding. However, the Plaintiff concluded a contract through open competitive bidding.