logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.06.22 2017가합408793
확인의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion is an audit of E Apartment apartment in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), Defendant B is the female president of the apartment of this case, and Defendant C was the female president of the women's association, respectively.

The Plaintiff pointed out that the Defendants used approximately KRW 5,40,00 for subsidies received from the council of occupants' representatives without submitting the instant apartment management agreement in violation of the management rules, and that they did not submit the performance records and report by activity to the council of occupants' representatives every month, and requested the Defendants to submit data and publicly announced three times from October 26, 201 to December 9, 201.

However, the Defendants filed a complaint against the Plaintiff as defamation in order to avoid such misconduct. On August 7, 2012, the Defendants appeared as a witness on the trial date of the relevant criminal case (Songnam support 2012DaMa853 case) and testified to the effect that “data such as receipts, etc. used for every month at the Women’s Association exist in the management office,” and as a result, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of five million won due to defamation, etc.

However, there was no receipt, etc. which the Defendants testified in the management office at the time, and there was a legal interest to obtain a judgment of confirmation of non-existence of the above fact in order to request the Plaintiff to review the relevant criminal case. Therefore, the judgment, such as the purport of the claim, is sought.

2. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, the subject matter of confirmation requires that it be the current rights or legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17585, Aug. 23, 2013). Simple factual verification is deemed that there is no benefit in confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da23872, Dec. 8, 1992). Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the subject matter of confirmation sought by the Plaintiff is the receipt or report as indicated in attached Table 1, which the Defendant testified to exist in the management office on the above date of trial, and the attached Form 2.

arrow