beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.12.17 2014나4727

관리비

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall accept this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant asserts that the management rules of this case were invalid since the general meeting of the management body which enacted the management rules of this case attended by many representatives, and there was no delegation required for representation, and the representative qualification was selected from among sectional owners, but the above general meeting was represented by a person who is not a sectional owner.

Therefore, it is difficult to find a ground that the agent qualification of the above general meeting is limited to the sectional owner, and according to the statement of Gap evidence 14-1 to 27, it is recognized that the power of attorney required for representation at the above general meeting has been equipped. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the defendant argued that the 113 and 114 among the commercial buildings of this case should have first imposed management expenses, but according to the Gap evidence Nos. 1 and No. 15-1 through No. 25, Article 7 subparag. 5 of the building management rules of this case provide that the tenant should bear management expenses. Article 2 subparag. 2 of the same rules provides that the tenant shall bear management expenses. Article 2 subparag. 2 of the same rules provides that the tenant shall be included in the sectional owner, etc., and that the plaintiff shall bear management expenses, etc., and that the tenant has been informed to the tenant of the building of this case. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. In addition, the Defendant violated Articles 23-2 and 25 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings by allowing the Plaintiff to occupy 139 and 140 out of the instant commercial buildings without permission and not taking measures to cut electricity and water at a timely time, etc., and such Plaintiff all the annual management expenses.