205 Gaz. 90730 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1, 2

December 11, 2006

January 11, 2007

1. The Defendants: 30,000,000 won for each Plaintiff and its related amount from October 25, 2005 to January 11, 2007

To the end, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 4/5 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendants shall jointly and severally serve the Plaintiff KRW 298,500,000 and the next day of the delivery of the complaint to the Plaintiff.

It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 201, 201, as the representative director of △○○, set up an entrance at the center of 101, at the center of 101, when leasing part of subparagraph 1 of the 3rd and 1st floor of the Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Matri-dong Department 1 of Seongdong-gu (101, the approximately 2/3 level, and the remainder of the wall installed is called as 102 level, which is called 102 leveld) owned by ○○○ around August 201. The expenses agreed to be half.

B. On August 8, 2001, Defendant 1 (hereinafter the Defendant Management Body) notified Defendant 1 (hereinafter the Defendant Management Body) that part of the fleet will be transferred for the establishment of exclusive entrance and exit exit, and the Defendant Management Body notified that it is inappropriate. However, from September 2001 to October 2001, Defendant Management Body notified Defendant 1 of the fact that the Corporation was demoted and the Corporation was demoted and it was 101 out of the front glass wall.

The entrance of 3 meters in width is installed in the Republic of Korea, the front part 13.5 meters was removed and the stairs were installed in the place. On the other hand, the front part of the exclusive entrance of 35 meters in width, the front part of 102, the front part of 102, 5 meters in width, 2.35 meters in width, and the front part of the exclusive entrance of 1.35 meters in width was newly constructed on 13.5 meters in width, which amount to 3 meters in width (hereinafter referred to as the construction in this case). At the time of the Defendant management body, Red ○○ requested the head of Gangnam-gu Office not to install landscaping again on August 25, 2001, 10, 2001, 3.5 meters in width, and 4.0 meters in width, but it did not obtain a request for a correction order, such as coffee.

C. On September 1, 2002, the Plaintiff, who is the ○○○○, took over the 101 store from the above △△△, concluded a lease contract with the head of the ○○○○○ on September 1, 2002. On November 29, 2002, upon entering into a management contract with the Defendant’s management office, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2.95,000 with the management deposit in the said management office.

In the above management contract, the head of the management office of the defendant management body stated "A and the tenant (owner) B", and the main contents of the contract should be observed such as approving the management regulations of A and paying management expenses.

D. On July 2, 2003, the Plaintiff decided to convert the category of business from a coffee shop to a landscape house, and requested Defendant 2 to obtain approval from the president of the management body, but on July 18, 2003, notified that the damage to the previous landscape facility was not caused. On July 18, 2003, the Defendants demanded a large-scale painting on the underground parking lot, and on July 25, 2003, the Plaintiff responded to actively review the Plaintiff’s submission of adequate alternative measures, such as usage fees inside and outside of KRW 30,00,000. The Defendants deposited the above construction work on September 19, 200, and notified the Plaintiff that it would be possible to restore the land to its original state by 00,000 won per annum 20,000 won per annum 30,000,000 won per annum 2,000,000 won per annum 30,000 won per annum.

E. Meanwhile, as the plaintiff died on August 22, 2004 in the name of 1004, the plaintiff was on October 1, 2004.

On September 30, 2003, the name of the tenant was changed to the plaintiff. On September 30, 2003, the re-contract was concluded between ○○○ and KRW 400 million, monthly rent of KRW 1,9850,00 (Value-Added Tax Map), and from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2005, the re-contract was concluded and operated under the trade name called "from November 1, 2003, by inserting the time facilities up to KRW 100,000 and employing employees who are up to 10,000 persons."

According to the above lease agreement, the management regulations implemented by the lessor A (including the Office of Residents and the Office of Management) after prior notice shall be deemed part of this agreement, and (Article 22), and the administrator appointed for the management of commercial buildings and buildings by the lessor A shall have the rights and obligations of the agent A as to the management of the commercial buildings and buildings: (Article 11); particularly, the management expenses and the use of the buildings necessary for the maintenance and management of the leased object shall be fully borne by B; (1) the management expenses shall follow the management guidelines by the management body; (2) the management expenses shall include electricity charges, water and sewage charges, cooling and heating charges, cooling and other maintenance expenses for the special facilities or separately used facilities required by the lessor A, and (2) the expenses and taxes for the maintenance of the building shall be separately paid for the management of the building and building B, and (3) the expenses for the management of the building and building shall be maintained by Section 1 and Section 5 (1) of the main water supply and drainage facilities to ensure that there is no inconvenience in the management body.

F. On May 10, 2004, the Defendants urged the Plaintiff to restore the instant construction to its original state, and notified the Plaintiff that an administrative fine, etc. will be imposed pursuant to the management organization rules and management regulations (hereinafter the rules or regulations). On May 19, 2004, the Defendants notified the Plaintiff on May 24, 2005, following the resolution of the board of directors on May 19, 2004, that the Plaintiff and the Jeju would include 2 million won per month for the use of the section for common use as the administrative fine for the use of the section for common use, and that “a separate deposit shall be collected from the sectional owner and collected from the sectional owner for the calculation of the cost for restoring the building to its original state.”

G. From May to June, 200, the plaintiff was issued a notice of management expenses added to 2 million won of the fine for negligence. On June 10, 2004, the defendants were resisted to the defendants, and the defendants were unpaid. On June 16, 2004, the board of directors passed a resolution to suspend or suspend the payment of 101, and on June 17, 2004, the plaintiff notified that the fine for negligence will be unpaid, cut, and closed for more than two months pursuant to the above resolution. On July 14, 2004, the plaintiff presented the consent or restoration agreement on July 14, 2004 under the premise that urban gas input construction works. However, the defendants were to pay the unpaid management expenses to the plaintiff by July 16, 2004, the defendants were to pay the unpaid management expenses by 200,000,0000 won to the plaintiff by July 16, 2004.

On July 20, 2004, 08: from 00 to 14:00, the measures of cutting electricity were taken.

The plaintiff found the defendant 2 to pay 500,000 won per month, and paid to the defendant management body a sum of 3 million won until November 2004, including 1 million won on July 28, 2004 and 500,000 won on August 17, 2004.

On the other hand, the defendant management body imposed KRW 32 million on July 28, 2004 at the cost of restoring the original state to the main ○○○○, but the main ○○○○, as a legitimate construction, rejected the request for restoration to the original state and the collection of the cost.

H. On September 15, 2004, the defendant management body passed a resolution again to collect a fine for negligence on a continuous and unpaid basis. On October 20, 2004, the defendant management body sent the above form in which the sum of the management fees in arrears was 8,330,000 won (all of the administrative fines correspond to 'the administrative fines') to the plaintiff on the following day after the payment deadline is due, and the above form was sent to the plaintiff on October 21, 2004.

22: From the 00th to the 10th 00th day following the due date, on November 19, 2004, the above forms were sent out to the 9.33,000 won in total of the delinquent management expenses (the same shall also apply), and on November 23, 2004: 09 to November 29: 00 to 16:00. On November 23, 2004, the Plaintiff was turned out to the end of the following month, but the Plaintiff was waiting until the next month’s meeting. The Plaintiff was reported on the suspension of business on November 1, 2004.

I. During this process, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that they would enforce their legal responsibilities due to interference with the business, and the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff on November 26, 2004, based on Articles 41(3) and 7 and 8 of the Rules (established in accordance with Article 6 of the Code), since the Plaintiff failed to pay management fees of KRW 9,330,00,000.

According to the rules, all sectional owners are obligated to pay administrative expenses, public charges, repair and maintenance expenses, special repair charges, and other expenses (referring only to "management expenses, etc." Article 8 (2)), sectional owners, etc. shall not engage in any act which is likely to undermine the internal ability of the main structural parts of the building (Article 9 (1)), the change of the section for common use shall undergo the resolution of the general meeting, and the change of the appearance and structure of the section for common use shall be approved by the board of directors (Article 15 (4)). The management expenses shall be paid within 15 days following the payment period; if they are unpaid within the payment period, 5% additional charges per annum; if they are unpaid by the end of the month, 25% additional charges per annum; if they are not paid thereafter; 41 (2) the sectional owners shall be paid for the period of arrears; and if they are not paid by the sectional owners, 3) the management expenses shall be collected by the resolution of the board of directors;

(j) On December 1, 2004, the Plaintiff notified the Jeju ○○○ of the Defendants that the lease contract was terminated on the grounds that the business was no longer available since November 23, 2004 due to the short supply of the Defendants, and the Defendants cannot pay management expenses after December 2, 2004 and November 23, 2004, and the management expenses for the first November (22th) were not settled as management deposit, etc. The Defendants urged the Jeju ○○ on December 30, 2004 to recover from the original state as soon as possible. The Defendants urged the Plaintiff to recover from the original state until the time to the original state, the Plaintiff to recover the unpaid management expenses up to the total amount of the unpaid management expenses up to the 10th day of December 30, 204, and the unpaid management expenses up to the 30th day of December 208, 2005, and the unpaid management expenses up to the total amount of the unpaid management expenses up to the 30th day of January 26, 200018.

(k) On June 2, 2005, the head of Gangnam-gu sent a civil petition meeting and a notification of correction order to remove the entrance stairs to the Defendants and to restore them to their original state after planting landscaping. The Defendants notified the Plaintiff of the above fact and notified the Plaintiff of the restoration to the original state. During the period from September 3, 2005 to September 16, 2005, the Jeju ○○ filed a lawsuit claiming delivery of 101 units against the Plaintiff on August 16, 2005 (this court 73452), and the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of lease deposit, etc. from 005 to 100,000,000,000,000 won to 200,000,000 won to 10,000,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 4,000,000 won to 20,000 won to .

【Uncontentious facts, Gap 1, 3 through 13, Eul 1 through 12, 14 through 29, each description of reference materials and images (including the number of branches) of the plaintiff’s submission, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff’s construction work cannot be deemed as a violation of the rules and regulations, and was conducted before the Plaintiff leased 101. As such, the Defendants’ imposition of administrative fines while demanding the Plaintiff to restore to its original state, and omission of the Plaintiff’s business in the Plaintiff’s business impossible due to the failure to pay the unpaid fines in three times or more, arguing that the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 190,850,000,000 from the day of the measure of cutting off to the expiration date of the lease term as compensation for damages.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that this case’s construction constitutes an unauthorized remodeling and alteration of the section for common use, and that this case’s construction constitutes the case’s construction work without permission, and that it is justified as it is in accordance with Article 41(3) and Articles 7 and 8 of the Regulations, which provide that a sectional owner and a lessee of the section for exclusive use shall be subject to the application thereof, or under a management contract or a lease agreement concluded with the Defendants, which is concluded with the Defendants, the Plaintiff shall be obligated to restore the site to its original state and pay a fine for negligence. Meanwhile, the Defendants’ fine for negligence is imposed by dividing it into the remaining lease period (17 months from May 2004 to September 205) of the Plaintiff’s calculation of the expenses for special repair reserve.

B. Whether the construction of this case constitutes an act in violation of the rules or regulations

According to the above facts, it constitutes an alteration of the section for common use without the resolution of a general meeting in violation of Article 15(4) of the Regulations, where the main ○○○○ orders the main ○○○○ to remove part of the squad and install stairs at the place despite the opposition by the Defendant’s management body, it constitutes an alteration of the section for common use without the resolution of a general meeting. The act of having the entrance at the center of the front of the glass wall 101 constitutes an act of in violation of Article 9(1) of the Rules, or an act of changing the appearance and structure of the exclusive part without the approval of the board of directors in violation of Article 26 of the Rules, or an act of changing the appearance and structure of the exclusive part without the approval of the board of directors. Thus, the Defendant’s management body may demand the

C. Whether an administrative fine can be collected upon the Plaintiff’s request for restoration to its original state

The Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Building Act”) shall not commit any act detrimental to the preservation of a building, and other acts detrimental to the common interests of the sectional owners in respect of the management and use of a building (Article 5(4) and (1)), and matters not provided for in this Act among matters among sectional owners in respect of the management or use of a building, site or annex facilities, may be determined by regulations (Article 28(1)); the regulations and the resolution of the management body meeting shall also be effective for the special successor of the sectional owner (Article 42(1)); the possessor also shall be in respect of the use of a building, site or annex facilities by the regulations or the resolution of the management body meeting.

The duty to bear is identical (Article 46(2)), and the administrator, etc. may request the suspension of the act, the removal of the result, and the measures necessary to prevent the act if the possessor violates it (Article 43), and if so, may cancel the contract with respect to the section for exclusive use and request the delivery of the contract (Article 46).

In addition, the Plaintiff entered into a management contract with the Defendants to comply with the rules and regulations, and even under a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the main ○○○○, the rules and regulations are the contents of the contract.

It is deemed that the plaintiff is also responsible for the special facilities installed by the plaintiff as well as the management expenses, especially for the special facilities installed by the plaintiff as well as the expenses for separate use.

However, the Act provides that the rules shall not harm the rights of a person other than the sectional owners (Article 28(3)); the regulations, in essence, stipulate that a management body's autonomous rule consisting of sectional owners has binding force only to its members (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Da8677, Sept. 20, 2001); and that the duties owed by a possessor under Article 42(2) of the Act are merely for use during the period of possession, and the possessor is not responsible for the violation of the former possessor's rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, 3604, Jun. 29, 2006). The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have agreed to assume the responsibility owed by the State ○○ under the above management contract or lease agreement, together with the Defendant's management body.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s promise of restoration to the original state was premised on the approval of the Urban Gas Inbound Construction Work. However, the Plaintiff did not approve it, and the Plaintiff was not able to seal gas pipes through 102, and the Plaintiff’s aforementioned 3 million won paid by the Plaintiff was at the higher level.

Since it was a de facto measure to escape from this point of view, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was bound to restore the original state to its original state and pay the fine for negligence.

Ultimately, it is unreasonable to require the plaintiff to restore to the original state and impose a fine for negligence.

However, the Plaintiff, a sectional owner, leased part of the section of exclusive ownership from the State ○○, so if the Defendants were to impose sanctions against the State ○○○ for violating the self-governing norm, the Defendants may suffer from an anti-private disadvantage accordingly. The Defendants demanded the State ○○ to restore the original state several times and demand the payment of the expenses as seen earlier. Therefore, further, it is examined below as to whether the above suspension measures were legitimate in relation to the State ○○○.

D. Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the contents of the collective building agreement and its reasonableness are found to be in violation of the mandatory law or excessively infringing or restricting the ownership of a sectional owner beyond the necessary and reasonable scope, it shall be deemed to be valid in light of the social norms to the extent that it is deemed to be in violation of good morals and other social order. This also applies to the regulations that set forth measures such as a short circuit or a fraction, etc., but the same applies (Supreme Court Decision 2004.)

5. If a measure such as a short circuit or a short circuit is lawful and does not constitute a tort, it is insufficient to say that the measure was in accordance with the management rules. In light of the motive, purpose, means and method of taking the measure, the circumstances leading to the measure, and the degree of damage suffered by the occupant as a result of the measure, it is necessary to have a reasonable degree that can be permitted by social norms (see the above Article 204Da3598, 3604, supra). (2) The Defendants are the grounds for the short circuit measure under Articles 41 and 7, and 8 of the Code, which provide that the administrative fine shall be paid in installments, and its substance is the allowance for special repair, which is the kind of management fee, but in light of the resolution of the board of directors, the plaintiff, and the Jeju ○○○, it can be said that there is only a ground for correction of the previous violation or a fine for compelling execution under Article 82 of the Code.

However, the fine for negligence does not cause danger to community life by default, and it does not have any way to enforce the payment of the fine for negligence. Therefore, it is small that it is necessary to take a short-term measure. On the other hand, the damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the above short-term measure are serious, such as where the business that invested a huge amount of expenses is unable to recover, and where 10 employees are unemployed, so the above short-term measure on the ground that the above short-term measure on the ground of delinquency in payment of the fine for negligence is not sufficient.

(3) If so, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the above short-term action, which is a tort.

E. Scope of liability for damages (1) The amount of damages equivalent to the rent until the expiration date of the preferential lease period shall be considered.

According to the above facts, although the state ○○ was obligated to allow the Plaintiff to use subparagraph 101 as a lessor, the state ○○ did not comply with the Defendant’s management body’s demand for restoration to its original state as well as the Plaintiff’s demand for restoration to its original state, thereby failing to perform the above obligations. Thus, the above lease contract was terminated on December 1, 2004 by the Plaintiff’s termination.

However, when a lease contract is terminated due to a cause attributable to a lessor or a third party's interference, the lessee may demand the lessor to return the deposit, and the subsequent rent is not obligated to pay it (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16591, 16607 delivered on January 27, 2006). Thus, the Plaintiff's claim for this part of this claim is not reasonable in itself (it cannot be viewed as a tort committed by the Defendants even if the Defendant actually suffered damage due to a conciliation with the State ○○).

(2) However, the plaintiff, who had not been obligated, demanded the restoration of the original state to the main party of the plaintiff who is not obligated to do so, and the fine for negligence is imposed, and taking full action, has not been able to resolve the problem by itself, but the plaintiff was not able to resolve the problem by his own restoration to the original state, but has not been able to resolve the problem due to the Jeju ○○'s restraint, and even during his excess, the plaintiff is the defendants.

In addition to management expenses to prevent the recurrence, even though the defendants had written 50,000 won per month in addition to additional management expenses, etc., the defendants suffered from the business credit due to the suspension of the power plant, lost the opportunity to recover the investment money through the business, and the defendants urged the plaintiff to restore to the original state, and the defendants continued to use the part of the plaintiff's claims to return the deposit through the management service company for the reasons of delinquency in management expenses, etc. (the management expenses up to November 22, 2004 until the settlement was completed by the plaintiff. The management expenses up to the end of the management expenses up to the end of the management expenses up to the end of the management of the aggregate building and the part of the subsequent management expenses up to the end of the management expenses up to the end of the management expenses up to the end of 00,000 won, and there is no obligation to pay the management expenses during the period (the above management expenses up to the end of 200,3598,3604). Since the plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the above profits after the closure of the lease contract.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay to each of the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 25, 2005 to January 11, 2007, the date following the delivery of the complaint, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint, to the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 35 of the Civil Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

Judge landscaping column of judge

Judges Kang Woo

Judges Park Jae-young