(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.16 2013가단323247

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.16 2013가단323247

부당이득금반환 등

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on the attached list real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) based on the sale due to a voluntary auction as of September 10, 2012, No. 83927, which was received on September 10, 2012 from the Busan District Court.

B. On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs received the instant real estate from D, the former owner of the instant real estate.

C. As of November 12, 2012, D’s unpaid management expenses were KRW 4,153,490 (the full-time part 2,256,780, the full-time part 1,896,710, the full-time part 2,256,780, and the full-time part 1,896,710). The player management expenses deposited to the Defendant was KRW 1,09

D offset the amount of KRW 2,256,780 for the management expenses of the section for exclusive use by the defendant and paid KRW 1,115,610 for the difference.

The Defendant urged the Plaintiffs to pay the unpaid public management fees of KRW 1,896,710 and late payment fees of KRW 1,89,710 on several occasions, but the Plaintiff did not pay them, and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the management rules, taken a fractional measure on the instant real estate from July 17, 2013 to September 1, 2013.

E. On September 2, 2013, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 2,248,290 to the Defendant the unpaid common area management fees of KRW 1,896,710 and late payment fees of KRW 351,580.

F. According to the management rules of the apartment of the defendant, the special successor of the apartment shall succeed to the delinquent management fees of the former tenant and take fractional measures in the case of default on the management fees.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion ① KRW 2,256,780 that D paid to the defendant or dealt with by set-off shall not be appropriated for the management expenses for the exclusive use area, but shall be appropriated first for the repayment of the debt with the highest repayment profit. If it is appropriated for the exclusive use portion and the management expenses for the common use area from May 201 to 8, 2012, which first comes due, the repayment should be appropriated for the repayment of the debt

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2017.12.01 2017가단3305

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.22 2017가단216335

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.22 2018나61163

-부산지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나52812

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.10.01 2018가단11297