beta
Text
1. Upon the claim that the court changed the exchange in this court, the defendant 16,572,640 won and this shall apply to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a real estate management consulting company. The defendant's intervenor is a management body comprised of sectional owners of "L", which is an aggregate building of the 6th underground and the 9th floor above the ground in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and the 19th floor above the building of this case. The defendant is the following among the buildings of this case.
It is a sectional owner of a commercial building on the corresponding column of the port room (hereinafter referred to as "commercial building owned by the defendant").
B. On April 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment agreement with the Defendant joining the Defendant on the operation and management of the building of this case, and completed the said agreement on April 12, 2013, and thus, the said agreement was not paid from the Defendant joining the Defendant, and on May 10, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant joining the Defendant seeking service payment against the Defendant under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap36090, May 10, 2013, and was sentenced on November 15, 2013, “The Defendant joining the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 190,380,000 and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on December 6, 2013.
(hereinafter “final judgment of this case”). C.
The Plaintiff’s claim attachment and collection order 1) On June 18, 2013, as Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan2242, the Plaintiff is the co-owner and lessee of the instant building, including the Defendant, and the third obligor, as the preservation right, KRW 195,593,930 as to the Defendant’s Intervenor’s service payment and delay damages claim against the Defendant, and KRW 195,593,930 as to the amount by the third obligor (the Defendant: 8,800,000), among the current and future management expenses claim against the Defendant’s third obligor, the provisional seizure of the claim was rendered (hereinafter “the provisional seizure of this case”).
(2) On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was served on the Defendant, etc. at that time.