logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2015.01.14 2013나5563
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in paragraph 1 of this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. As such, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 420 of

In addition, following the second page 19, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,392,870, and KRW 5,118,363, which are the full amount of management expenses for the instant real estate in 2013, to the Defendant from January 2, 2014 to June 2014.

Part 2, Part 20 to Part 3, Part 2, Part 3 (paragraph d (a) of Part 1), and Part 16 and Part 17 should be added to the column "(applicable for recognition)" of Part 3.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant real estate, has the right to park 12 vehicles free of charge in the instant officetel underground parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) pursuant to the relevant provisions. However, the Defendant, from May 19, 201 when the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate to May 19, 201, limited the Plaintiff’s access to the instant parking lot or collected parking fees from the said occupant per month for 50,000 won per vehicle. As such, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff money at a rate of 22,80,000 won (=50,000 won per month) due to compensation for tort or return of unjust enrichment 】 38 months (from May 19, 2011 to July 19, 201), and delayed payment 】 KRW 60,000,000 per month until July 20, 2014 】 (i.e., free payment of money from the Plaintiff’s parking lot.

In regard to this, the defendant not only did the plaintiff pay part of the management expenses for the real estate of this case, but also had the vehicle number and the user of the real estate of this case against the defendant in accordance with the relevant provisions.

arrow