beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who remodeled a building, such as a sales facility of the 7th floor and the 8th floor, which was constructed in the 7th floor and the 7th floor of the 7th floor of the 8th floor in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-si, and divided into several sections for exclusive use that are the object of sectional ownership (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”). Of the instant aggregate building, the Plaintiff is a person who sold a divided ownership of the 5th floor of the 5th underground floor, the entire 6th floor of the 6th underground floor, the entire 7th floor of the 7th underground floor among the instant aggregate buildings
(hereinafter the above parking lot is referred to as “instant parking lot”). B.
Under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the " Aggregate Buildings Act"), the defendant is a management body established for the purpose of implementing the project on the management of the aggregate building in this case, its land and its accessory facilities.
C. As above, the instant aggregate building has a parking lot from the 1st to the 4th underground, which is the common area (hereinafter “instant public parking lot”). The Defendant leased the instant exclusive parking lot from the Plaintiff to operate it in combination with the instant public parking lot. On July 23, 2012, at the “Representative Council of the Managing Body,” the Plaintiff made a resolution to revise that the instant exclusive parking lot was operated by itself and the instant exclusive parking lot was exempt from management expenses (hereinafter “the instant resolution”).
On July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to confirm the invalidity of the management rules, and was sentenced by the Seoul High Court to the effect that “the instant resolution is invalid” (Seoul High Court 2016Na2035718), and the Defendant appealed, but was dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 10, 2017.
E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not request the Defendant to pay from September 2010 to March 2013.