beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
The defendant of the claim shall make the plaintiff 53,069.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant determines as follows with respect to the additional arguments, etc. presented by the court of first instance.
2. The additional part of the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not a management body comprised of sectional owners of the building of this case, but a shopping mall consisting of lessees, etc., and therefore, the plaintiff is not qualified. Accordingly, according to each description of No. 1 and No. 2 of No. 1 and No. 2, the plaintiff is an organization consisting of all sectional owners of the building of this case pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
Next, the defendant asserts to the effect that he himself is a person having chonsegwon who is not the lessee, and that he does not have the obligation to pay management expenses since he left each of the instant commercial buildings due to the extinguishment of chonsegwon due to auction. Thus, according to the statement of 3 evidence (including the paper number), the defendant completed the registration of transfer of chonsegwon on each of the instant commercial buildings from 2004 to 2006, and the registration of chonsegwon was cancelled by auction on June 25, 2015. However, although the person having chonsegwon bears the obligation to pay management expenses like the lessee and the defendant occupied and used each of the instant commercial buildings by December 3, 2015, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.
(1) The defendant asserts that the above money should be deducted from the defendant's obligation to pay for the management expenses because he/she was possessed by C and he/she is not the possessor of the right to lease on a deposit basis. However, the above argument is without merit since he/she is recognized as the possessor of the right to lease on a deposit basis. In addition, the defendant claims that the above money should be deducted from the defendant's obligation to pay for the management expenses.