관리비
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 83,301,720 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 11, 2018 to the date of complete payment.
1. In accordance with Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the Plaintiff is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the 6th underground floor in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the 13th ground-based A commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). In occupying and using the whole 1st floor among the instant commercial buildings by leasing and using the whole 1st floor among the instant commercial buildings, the Defendant, as shown in the attached Form, overdue payment of the total amount of 83,301,720 won, including general management expenses and public charges, from February 2018 to July 2018, may be recognized by the following entry in the attached Form No. 1 to 6.
2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 11, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, sought by the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
The defendant asserts that, around April 30, 2018, the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E") is established in the commercial building of this case, and the right to collect management expenses belongs to E, the plaintiff cannot seek payment of management expenses against the defendant as much as it belongs to E.
On the other hand, the defendant's above assertion is presumed to be "a corporation under the Civil Act or the Commercial Act established with the consent of at least 2/3 of the shop occupants" under Article 12 (2) 2 (a) of the former Distribution Industry Development Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1497, Oct. 31, 2017) under the premise that E is a person having authority to conduct the business of the superstore operator. However, it is insufficient to recognize that E has been duly established with the consent of at least 2/3 of the shop occupants of the commercial building of this case, and since there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's above assertion is further examined.