logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.07.27 2017가합110241
관리비
Text

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by D (E).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A building specified in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) is a main complex building with the 4th underground floor and the 13th floor above the ground that obtained approval for use on June 28, 1999. There are 10 business facilities in total for the first floor of the ground, 100 apartment houses for urban life (studio) on the 1st floor, 2nd floor above the ground, 3rd to the 6nd floor above the ground, and 38 households in total on the 7th to the 13th floor above the ground (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The 1,2, and 3th underground of the instant building are parking lots, and the 4th underground floor is a machine room, electricity room, and parking lot.

B. On February 23, 2015, the Defendants acquired ownership of 1/2 shares of F and G (hereinafter “former owners”)’s neighborhood living facilities with the first floor reinforced concrete structure 1,417m2 of the instant building, which were used as public bath facilities (hereinafter “instant private house or facilities”) on the ground of voluntary auction.

C. The previous owner occupied and used 52.56 square meters in a warehouse of the first floor, 8.25 square meters in a warehouse, 49.5 square meters in a warehouse, and 49.5 square meters in a warehouse of the second floor (hereinafter referred to as “instant warehouse”), which is the common use area of the instant building. The Defendants also occupied and used the instant warehouse since the acquisition of the ownership of the instant well-owned house or the instant facility.

Upon the consent of at least 1/5 of the sectional owners of the instant building, the Plaintiff held an extraordinary general meeting of the management body on September 18, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant management body meeting”), and passed a resolution on the case of appointing an administrator, and the “case of legal treatment of the management expenses not paid”.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff is the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”).

Article 23 (1) shall be comprised of all sectional owners of the building of this case.

arrow