logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.10.17 2014가합3197
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 99,765,237 as well as 5% per annum from April 29, 2014 to October 17, 2014 as to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an association consisting of sectional owners of A, an aggregate building located on the land outside three lots of land, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and the purpose of which is to carry out projects concerning the management of the said building and its site and its accessory facilities.

B. Of the instant aggregate buildings, the Defendant is a sectional owner of the first floor Nos. 101, 201, 201, 501, 601, 601, 701, and 701, among the instant aggregate buildings (hereinafter “instant underground parking lots”), and operates “D” at the instant store.

C. The Defendant’s representative E served as the Plaintiff’s president from December 4, 2003 to February 29, 2012.

At the third representative meeting of the management body in 201 (hereinafter “the representative meeting of this case”) held on June 27, 2011, the Plaintiff resolved to propose a proposal for the management expenses that the Defendant’s “D” should be retroactively reduced by 181,97,040 won (including value-added tax 16,545,170 won; hereinafter “the unpaid management expenses”) out of the management expenses imposed from June 1, 2003 to August 31, 2009 on “D” operated by the Defendant.

E. From 2004 to 2010, the Plaintiff distributed to the Defendant the amount equivalent to the sum of 9,765,237 won equivalent to the area ratio of the instant underground parking lot (27.2%) owned by the Defendant among the lease income acquired by leasing an underground warehouse, which is a co-owned part of the instant condominium, from 2004 to 2010 (i.e., 2004, 21,261,225 won in 2006, 3,836,265 won in 206, 18,650,90 won in 207, 17,358,320 won in 208, 17,071,380 won in 209, 517, 580 won in value-added tax (hereinafter “the instant warehouse income”).

(B) The amount of dividends in the year 2010 was actually paid to the Defendant, and the remaining amount of dividends was offset against the Defendant’s claim for the attempted management expenses. (F) The management rules of the instant aggregate building are below the management rules of the instant case.

arrow