손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant, as the former representative of the A Steering Committee, violated the duty of care under the management rules (Article 29 (2) of the A management rules: members of the council of occupants' representatives are liable to compensate for damages if they have inflicted damages on occupants, etc. due to intentional or gross negligence. or Article 41 (3) of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 41 of the 20
A. The statement of Gap 24 (A Apartment Management Rules) submitted by the plaintiff at the trial on the argument that the plaintiff did not raise an objection to the payment order is difficult to view that the defendant violated the duty of care under the management rules, and rather, according to Eul 6 (Recording), 7 (Defident Certificate), and 8 ( photograph), the amount claimed in the payment order is the construction cost incurred by the new global economy environment due to the leakage of common areas, and the amount to be claimed in the payment order is the amount to be paid by the plaintiff. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
With respect to the assertion that security guards paid excessive amount of money to security guards, it is difficult to admit the Plaintiff’s assertion by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. It is difficult to find that the Defendant breached the duty of care under the management rules only with respect to the security guards A 10 (labor contract) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.