(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.11.20 2014가합8748

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) 부산지방법원 2014.11.20 2014가합8748

관리비

Text

1. As to KRW 5,140,741 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 2,661,450 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on August 27, 2013.

Reasons

1. There is no dispute over determination as to the cause of the principal claim, or both evidence No. 1 of Gap of the 12014Gahap8748 and evidence No. 1 of the 2014Gahap8755 are referred to;

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives of the Dong-gu, Busan (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). The defendant, on May 26, 201, purchased the apartment of this case No. 11, 460.2 square meters, 12, 243.24 square meters, 13, 257.04 square meters, 15, 364.02 square meters (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") in the auction procedure. According to the management rules of this case (hereinafter the "management rules of this case"), the above apartment of this case, the tenant of this case, who purchased the apartment of this case, is obliged to pay the management expenses to the plaintiff, and the defendant may recognize the fact that the management expenses of the apartment of this case were not paid to the plaintiff from January 2, 2013 to June 2, 450,79

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 5,140,741 won (=2,661,450 won +2,479,291 won) and delay damages.

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion and counterclaim as to the cause of the principal lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s assertion has unlawfully interfered with the Defendant’s use and profit-making of the Defendant’s underground shopping mall through the following series of acts.

① Although the Defendant acquired the ownership of a shopping mall, the Plaintiff did not deliver the key to the shopping mall, and the Defendant had to secure, by its own means, possession of the shopping mall.

② The instant apartment corridor was part of the section for common use of only the owner of the underground floor, and the Defendant owned the entire share in the said underground floor, but the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to open the said corridor for 24 hours.

(3) A defendant shall establish a laboratory in a commercial building on underground floors.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.14 2012가단5155244

-울산지방법원 2016.08.31 2016나950

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.13 2016가단32641

-대법원 2022. 1. 13. 선고 2020다278156 판결

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.09.18 2018가단96811