logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.16 2013가합535689
양수금
Text

1. The Defendants: (a) from April 10, 2013 to July 29, 2014, the Defendants’ respective Plaintiff KRW 871,738,794; and (b) from April 10 to July 29, 2014.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence 1 to 6, 9, 10 (if there are serial numbers, including each serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 to the whole purport of the pleadings.

The plaintiff is an enterprise that has occupied the apartment-type building B (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case") 632 in Ansan-si, the apartment-type factory, and prepared the factory operation and operation. The defendant A is a representative on D's business registration certificate that was occupied by the 630 unit of the building in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "unit of each of the above stores") and the defendant B's building management body (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant management body") is a management body established for the purpose of implementing the business of managing the building in this case and its accessory facilities pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium-si, the apartment-type factory in Ansan-si. The defendant C Co. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant C") concluded a management service contract on the building in this case with the defendant management body from around 2010 and managed the building in this case.

B. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales lease agreement with i-TNS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Japanese company”) on a monthly rent of 164,750,000 UN for three years to pay 164,750,000 the price for electronic device and inspection device (hereinafter “instant facility”) with the Plaintiff, and upon the payment of the said price, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant facility. The Plaintiff kept the instant facility in possession of 632.

C. On April 9, 2013, at around 10:58, the employees of the fire and the instant facilities damaged caused a fire, she was fluorily fluored due to a fire (hereinafter “the instant fire”), while performing medicine recovery work under Article 630 of the instant building, and the number of smoke and fire-fighting generated during that process.

arrow