logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2011.10.27 2011가단12047
관리용역비 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of managing the commercial facilities on the ground, such as Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, etc. (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”). The Selection C is the owner of No. 109, 47, 66, 67, 67 and 68, 68, 69, 69, 69, 47, 66, 67, 67, 69, 69, and 69.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant, etc.”) b. by referring to the Defendant and the designated parties.

On September 27, 1990, the Plaintiff obtained a market establishment permit for the instant commercial buildings in accordance with Article 6 of the former Wholesale and Retail Business Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4889 of Jan. 5, 1995). On December 5, 1990, the Plaintiff was designated as a market manager from head of Nowon-gu pursuant to Article 7 (1) 1 of the same Act.

C. As the Distribution Industry Development Act was enacted by Act No. 5327 on April 10, 1997, the Plaintiff registered the opening of a superstore in accordance with Article 8 of the Distribution Industry Development Act to the head of Nowon-gu around December 31, 1998 and managed the instant commercial building.

However, around June 2010, H et al., the shop occupants of the instant commercial building organized the “I business association” and established J Co., Ltd. on August 25, 2010 and received management expenses from shop occupants, etc., separately from the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, 3 through 6, Gap evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the legitimate authorized administrator of the commercial building of this case is not the plaintiff but the non-party company, and the defendant et al. should pay the management service cost in arrears to the plaintiff as shown below.

The sum of the overdue charge (won) of the management services costs of housing units C 47 and January 1, 2004; - February 8, 2011; 487, February 14, 201; 485.

arrow