logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.09.12 2017가단201162
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 429,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 6, 2015 to September 12, 2017, as follows.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was a multi-building asset management corporation (hereinafter “stock company”) and workers belonging to the Plaintiff, who managed the instant commercial building (hereinafter “C”) located in Hanam-si, Hanam-si, B (hereinafter “C”), and was the head of the management office of the instant commercial building.

B. On October 6, 2015, the Defendant, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, published the following notice (hereinafter “instant notice”) in relation to the Plaintiff who was managing the instant commercial building, or distributed the same notice to the sectional owners, etc. of the instant commercial building.

The purpose of the instant notice was to urge sectional owners, etc. to prepare a new management body by pointing out the following: (i) a false fire-fighting report has been prepared regarding the Plaintiff’s management activities; (ii) a standard for imposing general management expenses is not fair; (iii) a contract for building management exists; and (iv) a management fee collection account has been changed from multi-asset management to the Plaintiff; and (iii) a new management body has been changed to the Plaintiff.

D D D

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, as the manager of the instant commercial building, issued a summary order of KRW 300,00 (Seoul Northern District Court 2016Da9879) at the Seoul Northern District Court on August 19, 2016, which was issued a summary order of KRW 300,00 as a crime of occupational breach of trust (Seoul Northern District Court 2016Da9879), and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time, as is, around December 30, 2014, where the Defendant did not actually claim the cost of the instant commercial building over seven occasions from December 30, 2014 to September 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 7 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that of the defendant.

arrow