beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나2227

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff extended by this court against the defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The instant building is a management body established pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) and the Plaintiff’s representative F is the president of the instant building management body at the temporary management body meeting of July 18, 2014, and the temporary management body of the instant building at the temporary management body of the management body of the building at the temporary management body of the management body of the building of this case at the time of the temporary management body of August 31, 2016, and the temporary management body of the management body of the building of this case at the time of the temporary management body of the management body of the building of this case at the time of August 31, 2016.

3) As the representative of the Plaintiff, F asserted that “Defendant B is the managing company of the instant building. Defendant C and D occupy 61.6 square meters among the first floor of the instant building, and jointly possess 27.5 square meters among the first floor of the instant building under the name of the Commercial Building Promotion Committee. Defendant E occupies 98.6 square meters among the first floor of the instant building.” On November 24, 2015, the Seoul Northern District Court 2015Kadan4649 decided to take a provisional measure for the prohibition of real estate transfer. (b) On November 24, 2015, F brought a lawsuit against the Defendants, as the president of the instant building management committee and the Korea Industrial Finance Corporation (hereinafter “Non-Party A”) as the owner of the instant building, who was held by convening at least one fifth of the sectional owners of the instant building.” The Defendants filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 and the administrator of the instant building, claiming that the Defendants jointly appointed the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant building and the Defendants as the manager.

On the other hand, the part concerning the claim of the non-party company among the lawsuit in this case on June 30, 2015.