beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 23,421,580 and KRW 23,043,940 among the Plaintiff, from September 13, 2017 to June 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is the managing body of the apartment in this case as the council of occupants' representatives of the A apartment in the Siljin-si (hereinafter "the apartment in this case"), and the defendant can recognize the fact that he owned or owned the part of exclusive ownership indicated in the separate sheet among the apartment in this case.
B. As of August 10, 2017, the Defendant did not pay management expenses, long-term repair appropriations and late-term repair appropriations from April 2017 to June 2017 of the section for exclusive use indicated in the separate sheet among the instant apartment units as of August 10, 2017 (excluding management expenses and late-term repair appropriations of 23,381,960 won, late-term repair appropriations of 383,340 won, and late-term repair appropriations of 23,383,340 won and late-term repair appropriations of 383,340 won in the separate sheet column
C. D and E completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding F among the instant apartment units on September 15, 2017, and around that time, KRW 343,720 (=management fee of KRW 338,020) was paid for the unpaid management fee and late payment fee of KRW 343,720 (=management fee of KRW 5,700).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 23,421,580 won in aggregate of management expenses, long-term repair appropriations and late payment fees (23,765,300 won - 343,720 won), management expenses and long-term repair appropriations (=23,043,940 won - 23,381,960 won - 3338,020 won - 3338,020 won following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served, as requested by the plaintiff, for the management expenses, long-term repair appropriations, and late payment damages from September 13, 2017 to June 20, 2018, the following day after the issuance of the copy of the complaint of this case until June 20, 2018, which is reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the defendant's performance obligation.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are justified.