beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 16,030,552 and its payment from September 25, 2013.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition 1) B management body (other cost2) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Management Body”)
(B) Under Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the steel framed located in Seoul Central District, the 6th underground floor of reinforced concrete structure, the 11th floor neighborhood living facilities and sales facilities (B; hereinafter “instant building”).
(2) On August 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Non-Party Management Body on the claim for wages under the Jung-gu District Court High Court Decision 201Na32055, the lower court decided to recommend performance on August 29, 2012, stating that “The payment of KRW 15,630,507 and delay damages therefor shall be made,” and the said decision on recommendations for performance was finalized on September 20, 2012.
3) On June 18, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court Order 2013TT18370 (hereinafter “instant order of seizure and collection”) regarding KRW 16,030,552 of the (general) management expense claims against the Defendant of the Non-Party Management Body’s (hereinafter “instant order of seizure and collection”).
(4) On June 21, 2013, the collection order of the instant case was served on the Defendant on the 9th, 10, and 11th, while the fact that Nonparty management body received KRW 190,940,79 directly from June 2012 to December 2012, which was imposed on the Defendant by Nonparty management body on the 190,940,79 won (including additional tax, 1 month) x 7 months) and see the entry in the evidence No. 14 of this case. The fact that Defendant received KRW 190,940,79 for management expenses from the Dazb Co., Ltd. for the above period is recognized.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da14449 delivered on September 24, 2014, supra, held that the Plaintiff’s claim is subject to seizure on the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim for management expenses incurred newly after the delivery of the instant seizure and collection order is subject to seizure, but the premise is the same.