logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.03.30 2016가단6818
관리비
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

원고는 대전 서구 둔산중로 20에 소재한 ‘나비가아르누보팰리스’라는 집합건물(이하, ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다)을 위탁관리하는 업체이다.

The Defendant is the owner of heading 110, 111, 112, 113, 132, 136, 137, 138, and 703 of the instant building.

The defendant is delinquent in paying the management expenses for each of the above units from September 2012, and the management expenses for common areas among the delinquent management expenses are 27,030,706 won.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above 27,030,706 won and damages for delay.

Judgment

First, we examine whether the Plaintiff has the right to claim management expenses concerning the building of this case against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff filed a claim for the instant management expenses based on the instant contract entered into with the management body meeting of the instant building on June 11, 2012. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in the evidence No. 2 of the Plaintiff, on June 11, 2012, concluded an entrustment contract for the management affairs of the instant building (hereinafter “instant contract”). Of the instant contract, “this contract is deemed valid as a contract entered into on June 11, 2012 with A and B, and if the entire general meeting of the management body becomes ratified, this contract shall be deemed valid, and if it fails to obtain ratification, it may be acknowledged that the facts prescribed as invalid (hereinafter “aggravated”).

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had obtained ratification from the general meeting of the management body of the instant building regarding the instant contract.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s right to claim management expenses for the instant building is not recognized pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s claim premised on such right is further examined.

arrow