beta
Text
1. In accordance with the purport of the claim extended by the plaintiff A Steering Committee, the defendant shall be the plaintiff A Steering Committee.
Reasons
Plaintiff
A The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the claims against Defendant D and E are as follows: “Plaintiff” is changed to “the above Plaintiff”; and the following is the same as the part concerning claims against Defendant D and E in the first instance judgment except for the addition of the judgment as to “the part concerning claims added in the trial.” Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
According to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 7, 13, and 14 (including branch numbers) added in the trial, the above defendants did not pay the management expenses (including KRW 4,608,776, totaling KRW 8,981,213, Jan. 1, 2016; KRW 4,608,776, and KRW 8,981,213, Feb. 2, 2016; and the above defendants paid property tax (= KRW 36,821,660, Jul. 36, 2016, which the above defendants agreed to pay pursuant to Article 10 of the lease agreement) on behalf of the above defendants.
Therefore, the above Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above Plaintiff KRW 45,802,873 (=8,981,213 Won 36,821,660).
Plaintiff
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 11 and all pleadings against defendant F, defendant F, without the consent of the management committee of plaintiff F, can be acknowledged that the part of the claim No. 2 is occupied by sub-lease from the defendant D and E without the consent of the management committee of plaintiff F, the lessor. The defendant F is obligated to leave the above building according to the plaintiff F and Eul's claim for removal of interference based on the ownership of plaintiff B and C.
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the defendants against the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit, and the extended claims in the trial are justified, and the part of the claim is accepted as the grounds, but the "Plaintiff" in the decision of the court of first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "Plaintiff A Steering Committee", and it is so decided as per Disposition.