beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 3, 2006, the Plaintiff and B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) leased D (hereinafter referred to as “instant shopping district”) located in Daegu-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) from the Defendants to KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 90,000, and the term of lease from May 3, 2006 to March 31, 2013.
B. The Plaintiff et al. paid KRW 3,467,527, which was imposed on the disputed commercial building from October 2007 to February 2, 2013.
【Fact-finding without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 3-1 to 32, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment
A. Although the Defendants, as the owner of a commercial building in the dispute, are obligated to pay the special repair reserve imposed on the commercial building in the dispute because the special repair reserve imposed on the commercial building in the dispute falls under the long-term repair reserve prescribed in the Housing Act, the Defendants obtained unjust enrichment in the same amount by allowing the Plaintiff to pay the special repair reserve in lieu of KRW 3,467,527.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return the amount of 3,467,527 won to the Plaintiff according to their respective shares.
B. Article 51(1) of the Housing Act provides, “The managing body shall collect and accumulate the long-term repair appropriations necessary for the replacement and repair of major facilities of multi-family housing according to the long-term repair plan, from the owner of the relevant house.” Article 66(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides, “If a user of multi-family housing pays the long-term repair appropriations on behalf of the owner, he/she may claim the payment of the amount to the owner of the relevant house.” However, the instant commercial building does not fall under multi-family housing prescribed by the Housing Act, and the purport of the entire pleadings is to inquire into the details of the evidence No. 1 and