logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.24 2018나59593
관리비
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to whether a lawsuit is lawful (whether the requirements for the exercise of creditor's subrogation right) and Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant is the owner of the second unit E of the ground (hereinafter "instant commercial building"), the plaintiff was leasing and using the instant commercial building from the defendant around November 10, 2014; the plaintiff was managing D commercial building including the instant commercial building; the defendant was managing D commercial building from May 26, 2015 to February 1, 2017; the plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the non-party company between the non-party company and the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company, and acquired a loan equivalent to the amount of the loan claim against the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company; and the non-party company was not able to exercise the loan management fee against the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the non-party company is in a situation where the responsible property (affirmative) is insufficient to satisfy the creditor's preserved claim, and therefore, it is also necessary to preserve the non-party company as insolvent.

The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim does not meet the requirements of creditor's subrogation right is illegal is without merit.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s amount of the Defendant’s obligation to pay management expenses is sought from May 2008 to November 201, 2014 from the Defendant, and the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is considered as to this.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant shall be the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.

arrow