2019Na73676 Damages

A Council of Representatives

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Sang-hoon

1. B

Law Firm Chang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Cho Jae-py

2. C:

3. G (former trade name: D) stock company.

Defendant 2 and 3 Law Firm Kai Law Firm Ba

Attorney Cho Yong-hoon

Incheon District Court Decision 2018Gadan117304 Decided November 8, 2019

September 11, 2020

November 6, 2020

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant Eul Co., Ltd. shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 61,850,000, the amount of KRW 8,753,400 jointly and severally, and the amount of KRW 8,753,400 per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The ground for appeal by the plaintiff is not significantly different from the argument in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the first instance shows evidence No. 20 submitted by this court, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance are admitted to be legitimate. The reasoning for the judgment of this court is to dismiss the "State No. 9 (D) and the "State No. 11 (D)" in the fifth and fifth and the "State No. 11 (D" in the judgment of the court of the first instance as the "State No. 5 (D" in the court of first instance," and the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant No. 2 (hereinafter "State No. 2") violated Article 58 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act as the ground for the judgment of the first instance except for adding "Additional Judgment No. 2." to the "Additional Judgment" in

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 58 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, Defendant B, the management entity, has a duty to calculate the user fee of the resident sports facilities and impose it on the occupants. However, the authority to calculate and impose the user fee of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AF”) on the outside service company F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AF”) is an act of violating the obligation under an illegal interest and entrusted management contract. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay 61,850,000 won and damages for delay incurred by the Plaintiff due to the nonperformance

B. Determination

1) Article 58(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25320, Apr. 24, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the management authority may separately impose user fees for public facilities, such as residents' sports facilities, liftings, etc., on the users of the relevant facilities. In such cases, when the management authority entrusts the residents' sports facilities pursuant to Article 5-5, the user fees for the residents' sports facilities shall be determined within the scope of the entrustment fees for the residents' sports facilities, expenses for the management of the sports facilities, etc., and that the management authority may impose user fees for the relevant facilities separately on the users of the relevant facilities, and that the management authority shall impose user fees for the entrustment of the residents' sports facilities, and that it does not provide that the management authority shall impose user fees for the relevant facilities from the "direct users". However, according to the evidence No. 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, it shall not be deemed that the defendant LAWG entrusted the operation of the above golf center with the operation fee No. 15 months.

2) Furthermore, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 15, and 16 and the overall purport of arguments, the plaintiff presented 4,285,00 won to the plaintiff on the basis of four personnel expenses. However, as a result of the plaintiff's internal discussion, the plaintiff's internal discussion that it is necessary to add one employee to secure the safety and efficient management of the use of the volatilen Center's users, and the entrustment fee is maintained as it is, however, it is the fact that the contract for the entrusted operation of the volatilen Center was concluded, and Article 3 (5) of the entrusted management contract of this case provides that "the head of the management office, the head of the management office, shall comply with the plaintiff's rules or resolution." In light of this, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff violated the obligations under the entrusted management contract of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff and that the plaintiff directly received the use fee from the F.O.K., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the damage to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall be appointed from among judges.

Judge Laos

Judges Yoon Sung-sung