logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.26 2014가단7511
칸막이시설물 철거
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall draw up the annexed drawings of the store No. 117 and 121, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul E Apartment-dong, Seoul.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management committee established with the purpose of protecting the mutual rights and interests of members of Seongbuk-gu Seoul E Apartment A shopping Complex (hereinafter below) and promoting friendship and contributing to the sound development of the community by establishing order in commercial buildings. As to subparagraphs 117 and 121 among the instant commercial buildings on October 20, 201, Defendant C acquired each ownership as to subparagraphs 118 and 122 among the instant commercial buildings on December 17, 2013, and Defendant D acquired each ownership as to subparagraph 119 among the instant commercial buildings on June 26, 1998.

B. On December 24, 2013, the Defendants removed the partitions at a height of 1 20 cm with a height of 1m and 20m installed at the boundary of their own stores, and installed a wall in favor of the Defendants with a string of tents from the floor to the ceiling (hereinafter below).

C. Among the instant commercial buildings, a wall was installed from the floor to the ceiling, and the store located on the center part of the instant commercial building was sold in the form in which only 1m 20cm high and 20cm high to divide the boundary of the store (hereinafter below, such commercial building was sold in open.)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants installed the instant partitions in violation of the Plaintiff’s management rules, and thus, the Defendants’ amendment to the Plaintiff’s bylaws in December 2012 to limit the height of the partitions to 1 m20 m. is null and void in violation of the Plaintiff’s procedures. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no ground for filing a claim for removal by the Plaintiffs, and that the instant commercial building is inevitable to install the instant partitions in order to operate the business because it does not become a heating and cooling.

(b) Determination Party A’s statements and images, as well as evidence Nos. 1 to 8, 13, 14, 16, Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 11, of this Court.

arrow