beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 58,201,866 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 15, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff is recognized is a company that performs the management of the building B (the underground second and seventh floor size, hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). The Defendant operates a medical institution (C hospital) in the instant building Nos. 203, 301, 401, 501, 601, 701, and 702 (the aforementioned head office collectively referred to as the “instant store”).
The Plaintiff imposed management expenses on the Defendant from August 2016 to October 2016. However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 58,201,866 among the management expenses imposed as above.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unpaid management expenses of KRW 58,201,866 and damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 15% per annum from November 15, 2016 (the day following the delivery date of the complaint as requested by the Plaintiff after the payment date) to the day of complete payment (the day following the delivery date of the complaint), to the day of full payment.
B. The Defendant asserts that, as the management body of the instant building terminated the management consignment agreement with the Plaintiff as of October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim management fees.
As to the legality of termination of the management entrustment agreement, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the management body of the building of this case established regulations with the consent of 3/4 or more of the sectional owners and voting rights pursuant to Article 29 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings) (the defendant also has obtained the consent of 3/4 or more of voting rights, and there is no assertion as to the fact that the defendant obtained the consent of 3/4 or more of sectional owners), and at the meeting of the management body, the executive officers of the management body are different from the executive officers of the management body.