beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.03.10 2015나105580

관리비

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is the Plaintiff’s representative.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. In the instant case where Defendant B’s assertion, the management body of the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, I and the 5th ground JJ (hereinafter “instant building”) claimed management expenses against the Defendant and the designated parties, who are the sectional owners of the instant building, the Defendant B asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, because it is not the Plaintiff’s legitimate representative.

B. According to the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged according to each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6 through 9, and Eul's evidence Nos. 18 through 19 (including paper numbers):

1) On September 7, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the managing body of the instant building, made a frequent dispute between the interested parties of the instant building, including Defendant B and C regarding the establishment of the managing body, the designation of the manager, the receipt of management expenses, the taking of short-term and short-term measures, etc. on the instant building. (ii) During the foregoing, the Plaintiff, as the managing body of the instant building on September 7, 2013, made a resolution, such as: (i) partially amending the management rules; (ii) dismissing the representative K; and (iii) appointing Q as the representative C, general director L, executive officers, M, N,O, P, and (iv) determining to implement the immediate short-term and short-term measures against the delinquent households for at least two months.

3) On August 30, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) held an integrated meeting of the instant building; (b) amended the management rules; and (c) passed a resolution on the selection of the executives K, R, S, and Officetel C, T, and U recommended by the Integrated Management Board as the operating members of the Integrated Management Board. (d) On August 30, 2014, the Defendant passed a resolution on the selection of K as the representative of the Integrated Management Board by holding an integrated management group at the meeting of the Integrated Management Board.

On the other hand, Article 31 (1) 1 of the Management Rules of the Building of this case stipulates the qualification of directors to be elected by the Operating Council as the sectional owners of commercial buildings and officetels of this case.