관리비
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
Claim:
1. The fact of recognition is that the Plaintiff is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the A-commercial building on the 6th underground floor in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the 13th floor above the ground (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. The Defendant may, when he leases and uses the whole 1st floor among the instant commercial buildings, lease and use the whole 1st floor, as indicated in the attached Form, for general administrative expenses from February 2, 2018 to July 2018, 75,516,420, electricity charges of 2,349,420, late interest charges of 5,435,80, total amount of 83,301,720 won, as stated in the attached Form.
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.
According to the evidence No. 15, the head of Seodaemun-gu Office accepted the report of the E superstore manager on April 30, 2018 on the condition that he/she satisfies the requirements under Article 12 (2) 2 of the Distribution Industry Development Act, such as a corporation under the Civil Act or the Commercial Act, established with the agreement of at least 2/3 of the occupant-merchants by April 30, 2019 (at least 1/2 of the total store size, the sum of the store size operated by the occupant-merchants with the consent). Since it is recognized that E fails to meet the above conditions by the above deadline, the Defendant’s above premise that E is a legitimate superstore manager.