2015 Ghana 509769 Damage (ar)

A apartment occupant representative meeting

1.B

2.C

December 15, 2015

February 16, 2016

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 9,380,320 won with 5% interest per annum from January 1, 2015 to February 16, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Five minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, jointly and severally with Defendant B, pay 34,834,700 won out of this money and 5% per annum from August 1, 2014 to the delivery date of a complaint, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

Defendant B, at the council of occupants' representatives, the Plaintiff, is the head of the time from December 4, 2010 to July 31, 2014, and Defendant C, the head of the management office from December 1, 201 to December 31, 2014, respectively, may be recognized by each entry in the evidence No. 1 to No. 3.

However, if Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6-2 and 3 were written, and the result of fact-finding conducted by this court with respect to the North-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Office, the defendants violated the management rules, and have arbitrarily disbursed miscellaneous income as a substitute survey expense for the officers of the council of occupants' representatives during the above service period of 2013 and 2014 without going through the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives during the above service period, and the amount exceeds 9,380,320 won. According to the above A apartment management rules, if the members of the council of occupants' representatives caused damages to the occupants, etc. by intention or negligence, the fact that the defendants are liable for such damages can be acknowledged.

According to these facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay the above money and the delayed damage compensation to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(a) Remaining earnings;

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants committed an unlawful act as above in relation to miscellaneous income expenditures in 2011 and 2012. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that only the descriptions of Nos. 2, 14 through 18, 20, 19-1 and 2 are written only, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, there is no reason to acknowledge it.

(b) Operating expenses;

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendants voluntarily used the operating expenses of the meeting of the principal representative without going through the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives against the above management rules. However, according to the evidence No. 1, it is difficult to view that the use of operating expenses under the management rules should necessarily be subject to the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives. Rather, the management rules provide that operating expenses of the council of occupants' representatives may be used within the limit of 420,000 won per month for the promotion of community life (Article 32 subparag. 5). However, according to the evidence No. 4, the Defendants paid entertainment expenses, life saving gifts, relief money, marriage congratulatory money, etc. within the limit of the monthly amount of operating expenses, and therefore, it is not reasonable.

(c) Elevator remodeling works;

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants incurred losses from remodeling construction of an elevator to be implemented in 2014 in the long-term repair appropriations for the purpose of 2012 and paying the relevant construction expenses for two years. However, each of the items of evidence Nos. 14 through 18, 20, and 19-1 and 2 related thereto is insufficient to deem that the Defendants intentionally or negligently caused damages to occupants, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, according to the results of the fact-finding on some parts of the evidence No. 6-2 and 3 of the evidence No. 6-3, the fact-finding on the North Korean Office in the Gwangju Metropolitan City, and the witness D’s testimony, the Plaintiff filed several complaints and filed several complaints to repair the elevator that had been worn out at the time, and to replace this accordingly, it is not reasonable to recognize that the remodeling construction of the elevator as alleged in the above assertion through a resolution of the council of occupants’ representatives on August 21, 2012.

(d) Attorney fees;

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B arbitrarily used KRW 3,00,00 as attorney fees for Defendant B’s defamation case (Supreme Court Decision 201Do13942) that has no relation with the interests of the occupants. However, as above, each of the above items of Articles 14 through 18, 20, and 19-1, and 19-2 is insufficient to deem that Defendant B caused damage to the occupants, etc. on purpose or by negligence, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Furthermore, according to each of the subparagraphs 2-2, 2-3, and 6-3, and the fact-finding with regard to the North-gu Office of Gwangju Metropolitan City, the above case was illegal that the former Chairperson received business promotion expenses from the council of occupants’ representatives after submitting a letter of resignation during the election and resignation of the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives, and it was also a matter of whether it was defamation of Defendant B, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no reason for the occupant’s voluntary use of the attorney fees.

(e) Non-verification of sex offenses experience;

Finally, the Plaintiff asserts that the security guards employed by the Defendants, who did not know the sex offense experience when employing security guards, caused sexual harassment against female students at middle school and caused damages to the social reputation and credit of the above apartment. However, there is no evidence to prove the sex offense experience and there is no substantial causal relationship between the occurrence of the damage, such as the fact that the sex offense experience was not confirmed and the occurrence of the sexual indecent act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 9,380,320 as well as damages for delay at each rate of KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 1, 2015, which is the date of the judgment of this case, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation, from January 1, 2015 following the expiration of the Defendants’ service period to the date of full payment, and KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is not reasonable. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Song-daeon