Sujin Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yellow-in-law, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-appellant)

October 2, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap46915 (main office), 2012Gahap46922 (Counterclaim) Decided January 22, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the claim for the return of the provisional payment are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of filing an application for the return of provisional payments shall be borne by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The principal lawsuit: The plaintiff (the counter-party defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff") shall pay to the defendant (the counter-party defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff") 156,619,958 won, and 64,043,405 won among them, the amount calculated by 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and from the day after the delivery date of a duplicate of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall deliver to the defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 35 of the attached drawing among the buildings listed in the attached list of the attached list by 10, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 47, 48, 48, 19, 200, 19, 3000 won per annum from 20, 30,000 won per annum from 16,000 to 30,000 won per annum 29,000 won per annum, 36,000 won per annum from 29,0364.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is sought a judgment such as the purport of the counterclaim.

3. Purport of request for the return of provisional payments;

The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 209,165,303 won as provisional payment and 208,686,338 won among them, 478,965 won per annum from April 10, 2014 to the date of each of these rulings, and 5% per annum from May 7, 2014 to the date of each of these rulings, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's instructions concerning this case is as follows: (a) adding "No. 36" to the 10th 12th 12th 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the 5th 3th 3th 5th 5th 18th 19th 18th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 20th 12th 10th 200 of the judgment of the court of first instance

[Supplementary Use]

Part V 3 to 8

According to the management services contract of this case, "the plaintiff is entrusted with all of the business affairs related to the entry and leaving store of this case, management expenses of the commercial building of this case, imposition, collection, and collection of various charges and various expenses, all of the matters concerning the operation and supply of various facilities, all of the matters concerning the operation and supply of the building, and the operation and safety of the building (Article 2 (1) through (3), 5 of the contract). The office used by the plaintiff for the management of the commercial building of this case is provided by sectional owners and lessees (Article 7 (1) of the contract).

Part 18 Sheet 19

“A manager duly appointed by the sectional owners of a building has been delegated all the powers for the management and operation of the building to the sectional owners in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Accordingly, if a manager entered into a management service contract with a management service provider in accordance with the management rules, etc., the sectional owners need not bear certain obligations provided for in the contract. According to the management service contract of this case, the management office is within the building of this case. According to the management service contract of this case, the sectional owners and lessees of the commercial building of this case provide the office used by the plaintiff for the management of the building of this case. In particular, the part of the commercial building of this case is collectively owned by Nonparty 2 and Defendant 2.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the defendant and the application for return of provisional payment are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)