beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7, the plaintiff is the manager of Sungnam-si Section A ("the commercial building of this case"). The defendant is operating the private teaching institute of this case by August 20, 2013. The plaintiff entered into an occupancy contract with the defendant for the warehouse ("the warehouse of this case") located on the rooftop of the commercial building of this case one year from October 1, 201 to September 30, 201, with the period of 10 to 100,000 won, and the occupancy contract of this case was explicitly renewed until August 2013. According to the management rules of the commercial building of this case, if the management body did not pay management fees until the expiration date of payment, the plaintiff did not pay management fees for the commercial building of this case by 10% for the first three months to 30%, 10% for the first five months, and 10% for the second five months to 10.5% for 10% (the second five months to 1.5%).
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 28, 2014 to the date of service of the complaint as requested by the plaintiff with respect to the unpaid management expenses in accordance with the management rules of the commercial building of this case (=3,150,000 won + 184,956 won) and the principal amount (=3,184,956 won + 184,956 won + KRW 184,956) to the plaintiff, who is the managing body of the commercial building of this case, pursuant to the management rules of the commercial building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant paid all the management expenses for common areas from May 201 to September 201 for the warehouse of the instant case and the pro rata management expenses on August 2013 for the shopping district 502. However, the Defendant submitted them.