관리비
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s determination of the argument at the trial room is added to Paragraph (2) below; and (b) the reasoning for the first instance judgment is as stated in the part of the reasoning for the first instance judgment, except for deletion of No. 3 and No. 19 of the first instance judgment; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that the defendant did not have the defendant's obligation to manage the commercial buildings of this case since the plaintiff was unable to use the No. 4027 of the fourth floor among the commercial buildings of this case owned by the defendant (hereinafter "the store of this case"), by taking such measures as cutting electricity, cutting off, suspending the operation of elevators, etc. as to the No. 4,5,6,7 commercial buildings of this case.
B. If a sectional owner of a building could not use or profit from the building due to unlawful obstruction of use, such as measures to stop the operation of the management body of an aggregate building, such as cutting electricity and water and suspending the operation of elevators, the sectional owner does not bear the obligation to manage the building during the period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, 3604, Jun. 29, 2006). As to the instant case, the health unit and the Plaintiff continued to close the shopping mall fourth floor including the instant store from May 6, 201 to December 21, 2016, which was at the time of the closure of the argument at the trial. Accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant could not use or benefit from the instant store due to the Plaintiff’s unlawful act, and the Plaintiff’s claim for management expenses from May 6, 2011 to the date of the foregoing 10th of December 21, 2016.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.