logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.08.23 2016나38441
관리비 등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition and modification as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Supplementary and revised parts] The following parts shall be added at the end of the 12th judgment of the first instance.

[Defendant includes electric and water rates for common use in the management expenses (excluding KRW 870,00 per month, value added tax) under the lease agreement for the instant commercial building. It appears to the purport that the electric and water rates used in the instant commercial building are individual usage fees.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s claim for management fees in excess of the above amount is unreasonable. Article 6 of the instant lease agreement (Evidence 1) provides that the Defendant, as the lessee, shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 870,00 per month due to personnel expenses incurred in maintaining building management, cleaning of public facilities, cleaning of water tanks, cleaning of septic tanks, disinfection, elevator (parking for parking, passenger), maintenance and repair expenses, and electric safety management service expenses, etc. In addition, the Defendant, who is the lessee, bears the burden of electricity, water, gas usage fees, and taxes and public charges, etc. In addition, the controlled entity (Benefit70,000) of the commercial building of this case separately set the management expenses (i.e., common electricity, water, and water supply and sewerage charges) other than the management expenses (i., 870,000 won) and claims for management fees in the commercial building of this case by issuing a detailed statement of management expenses (i.e., the evidence No. 3-1 to 6), and (ii) the Defendant did not accept the aforementioned Defendant’s claim against the Defendant’s first 261.

arrow