logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.08.31 2017가합402955
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The lawsuit of the plaintiff E-management body shall be dismissed;

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff A, B, C, and D among the aggregate buildings listed in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In order to manage “E” as indicated in the [Attachment List in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff’s management body is a management body organized automatically by consisting of sectional owners of the instant building pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”), and the rest of the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff’s management body (hereinafter “sectional owners”) are sectional owners of the instant building.

B. On September 2015, H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant executor”) as the executor and seller of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) entered into a contract for real estate asset management (hereinafter “instant management contract”) with the Defendant regarding the management of the instant building. Since then, the Defendant occupied part of the section for common use of the instant building and continued to manage the said building.

C. The sectional ownership of the instant building is 526 households in total (506 households in officetels, 20 households in business buildings), and the area of the entire section for exclusive use is 39,748.19 square meters in total (=A Dong 16,228.98 square meters in B20,845.74 square meters in business buildings, 2673.47 square meters in total).

I, among the sectional owners of the building of this case and the lessees who exercise their voting rights by sectional owners pursuant to Article 24(4) of the Multi-Unital Building Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the sectional owners and lessees of this case"), a total of 292 persons who submit a letter of demand for convocation, power of delegation and written consent, etc., and 15 persons who claim that the plaintiff submitted duplicate power of delegation are excluded from the sectional owners and lessees of this case.

On July 28, 2016, upon receipt of a letter of request for convening an extraordinary meeting of the management body, letter of delegation, written consent, etc. from the management body meeting (hereinafter “instant meeting”) held, and the main contents of each of the above documents are as follows:

A request for convening an extraordinary management body meeting shall be made in person.

arrow