beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Claims as to the cause of the instant claim
A. The plaintiff sought payment of the management fees in arrears from the defendants on the premise that the plaintiff is the management body for the partial common area established to manage the partial common area of the building of this case as the ground for the claim of this case as originally stated in the ground for claim of this case. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff is not a management body for partial common area, and argued that the plaintiff
B. Accordingly, through the preparatory brief dated September 17, 2017, the Plaintiff: “The instant building on September 18, 2017 is a major complex building with the 13th floor above the 4th ground surface above the ground surface; there are 100 business facilities on the 2nd floor above the ground surface, and there are 38 households in total from the 7th floor to the 13th floor above the ground surface. The assembly of the management body was held for the entire sectional owners; the assembly of the management body was held at the meeting of the management body, with the consent of a majority of sectional owners and the total area of 9,449.51 square meters of the instant building, a resolution was duly passed to appoint a manager as a party to the instant claim and a manager of the instant building, claiming that D is the party to the instant claim and the party to the claim.”
2. Determination
A. Each of the above claims as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim is selected as a selective assertion, and first of all, whether the plaintiff is a legitimate management body for partial common use as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no sufficient evidence to recognize it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion against the defendant on a different premise is without merit
B. Next, there is no evidence to acknowledge the resolution of the management body meeting of the Plaintiff as to whether the Plaintiff was a legitimate management body concerning the whole building of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the contents thereof. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is