(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.11.13 2019나1536

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.11.13 2019나1536

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On the premise that the Defendant is the management body of the Fdong, Songpa-gu Seoul and D (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff, the co-owner of the instant commercial building G, spent the waterproof construction cost of KRW 7,00,000 due to the water leakage on the rooftop, which is the co-owned part, that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 7,00,000,000 and the damages for delay.

B. Even if the Defendant is not a management body of the instant commercial building, the amount of KRW 7,00,000,000, which is the co-owned part, should be borne by each sectional owner of the instant commercial building. Since the Defendant collected rent, use fee, etc. for the co-owned part of the instant commercial building and used it for the management of the instant commercial building, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above amount of KRW 7,00,000,00 from the rent, use fee, and damages for delay that should be reverted to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. As to the claim of the management body, Article 23 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") provides that "if a sectional ownership relationship with respect to the building is established, a management body shall be established with the entire members of sectional owners and with the aim of implementing the business related to the management of the building, its site and its accessory facilities." According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the plaintiff is the owner of the 1/2 share in the 2nd floor group of the building in this case. The plaintiff has 11 units in the 15th floor, 4 units in the 2nd floor, and 15 units in the 15th unit, and part of the above 15 units are divided and used by one sectional owner and 15 units in the 16th unit. According to this, the defendant is recognized to be in charge of the management affairs of the commercial building in this case's friendship and the management affairs of the 16th unit of the building in this case.

참조조문

-집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.10.06 2020나50867

-광주지방법원 2018.01.12 2017나54073

-서울고등법원 2019.06.14 2019나2002351

-서울북부지방법원 2019.09.04 2018나2347

-청주지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나3998