beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.25 2017나13004

장기수선충당금

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. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Basic facts 1) On January 13, 2010, the Plaintiff leased an apartment unit of KRW 701,00,000, and KRW 75,000,00 from the Defendant-si, Ansan-si, the Defendant owned the apartment unit of KRW 701,605, and KRW 2 years for the lease term. The said lease contract terminated on January 17, 2017, and the Plaintiff delivered the said apartment unit to the Defendant. 2) During the lease term, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,019,200 for the long-term repair period of the said apartment unit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Article 30(1) of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act provides that “The managing body shall collect and accumulate the long-term repair appropriations necessary for replacing and repairing major facilities of multi-family housing according to the long-term repair plan from the owner of the relevant house

However, according to the above facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff instead of the owner of the above apartment, paid KRW 1,019,200 for the long-term repair appropriations, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 1,019,200 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from January 23, 2017 to February 10, 2017, the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff, from January 23, 2017 to February 10, 2017, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defendant's defense was that the plaintiff did not restore the above apartment to its original state at the time of the termination of the above lease agreement, but did not restore the damaged part of the wall damage, drawing, decoration, toiletl, etc. due to the damaged part to its original state, and the defendant paid KRW 2,620,000 at its repair cost.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant will meet the above long-term repair appropriations to be returned by the defendant.