(영문) 대구고등법원 2018.12.19.선고 2017나23500 판결

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 179, 842, 400 won with 5% interest per annum from April 21, 2017 to December 19, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. 2. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeals are all dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's claim as to KRW 740,048,350 and KRW 486,482,880 among them against the plaintiff

and 15% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the application for correction of the cause of the claim to the day of complete payment.

Korea shall pay the same amount of money.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff;

The cancellation of the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay under the first instance judgment.

C. From April 21, 2017 to July 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) KRW 557,541,436 to the Plaintiff.

It shall pay 5% interest per annum, 15% interest per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment.

(b) the Defendant;

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant ordering payment in excess of 36,39,494 won shall be revoked; and

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C (hereinafter referred to as "C") newly built the instant aggregate building entered into a business agreement (hereinafter referred to as "business agreement of this case") and management-type land trust agreement (hereinafter referred to as "E") with ○○○○○ ○○ dong******,*** on the ground to undertake the business of constructing and selling the apartment-type factory building on November 24, 2009.

(b) E is subject to Article 5 -2 of the instant project agreement and Article 5 of the aforesaid management-type land trust agreement.

8. 12. 12. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on the whole of 260 units of the instant condominium buildings. 2) The Defendant acquired the ownership of each partitioned building in the column of “heading room” (hereinafter “instant 74 units”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each date indicated in the column of “transfer date of ownership” in the table below.

3) On April 25, 2016, the Defendant transferred the ownership of No. 721 (hereinafter referred to as "No. 721") to G Co., Ltd., and the ownership of No. 1012 on July 20, 2016 to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the remainder excluding the foregoing No. 721 and 1012") respectively.

4) Subparagraph 233 of the same day after the transfer of ownership from E to D on August 26, 201, was entrusted to E on the same day, and on July 28, 2015, subparagraph 1017 of the same day was entrusted to J Co., Ltd. on the same day after the transfer of ownership to E.I., Ltd. (5) was transferred from E to E on May 26, 2014. (6) 1020 and 1021 were transferred from E to L on February 3, 2015.

다. 이 사건 집합건물의 관리주체 변경1 ) 주식회사 M ( 이하 ' M ' 이라 한다 ) 은 2011. 6. 22. 이 사건 집합건물 신축사업의 시행사이자 260개 호실 전부의 위탁자이던 C와 사이에 계약기간을 2011. 7. 1. 부터 2014. 8. 31. 까지로 하는 종합관리용역 도급계약을 체결하고 그 무렵부터 이 사건 집합건물의 관리업무를 개시하였고, 2014. 9. 22. 계약기간을 2014. 10. 1. 부터 2016. 8. 31 .까지로 하는 종합관리용역 도급계약을 재차 체결하여 관리 행위를 지속해왔다 . 2 ) 이 사건 집합건물의 구분소유자들은 2015. 5. 13. 관리단집회를 개최하여 관리규약 제정 및 관리운영위원회 구성을 의결하였다. 이에 따라 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 ( 이하 ' 집합건물법 ' ) 에 따라 원고가 구성되어 2015. 6. 11. ☆☆시장으로부터 관리규약을 승인받았고, 2015. 7. 20. 주식회사 N ( 이하 ' N ' 이라 한다 ) 을 이 사건 집합건물의 관리회사로 선정하였다. 원고의 관리규약 중 관리비와 관련된 규정은 다음과 같다 .제3조 ( 용어의 정의 )② " 입주사 ” 란 구분소유자 또는 구분소유자와의 권리계약에 의거 당해 건물에 실입주한 사용자 ( 점유자 ) 를 의미한다 .⑦ " A 관리운영위원회 " 라 함은 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제26조에 의거 층별대표를 구성원으로 하여 A와 그 대지 및 부속시설의 관리에 관한 사업의 시행을 목적으로 하는 관리기구, 즉 관리위원회를 말한다 .⑨ “ 관리주체 " 라 함은 제2조의 목적 달성과 그 시행을 위한 관리기구로서 자치관리의 경우' 자치관리기구 또는 위탁관리의 경우는 위임을 받은 ' 사업주체 ( 위탁관리업체 ) ' 를 말한다 .제8조 ( 입주사의 자격 )① 구분소유자의 자격은 전유부분의 소유권을 취득할 때 그 효력이 발생하고, 그 소유권을상실할 때에는 소멸한다 .제10조 ( 입주사의 의무 )④ 입주사는 집합건물 등의 유지, 관리를 위하여 필요한 관리비 및 장기수선충당금, 대손충당금, 발전기금, 화재보험료를 포함한 기타 보험료, 소방시설 및 건축물안전 등 점검비용, 소독비용, 분담금, 부담금, 기타 사용료 등 ( 이하 ' 관리비 등 ) 을 매월 또는 일정 시기에 납부하며, 관리비의 담보로서 관리비 일정액 ( 선수관리비 ) 을 입주하기 전에 납부하여야한다. ( 이하 생략 )⑤ 구분소유자가 그 소유인 전유부분을 제3자에게 대여, 임대하는 경우 관리비 및 수선충당금 등 제 비용에 대한 납부의무는 점유자에게 있으나 구분소유자는 연대하여 그 납부에대한 책임을 진다 .제12조 ( 권리, 의무 승계 )① 관리규약 및 운영위원회의 의결 사항은 입주사의 지위를 승계한 자 ( 특별승계인 포함 ) 에대해서도 그 효력이 미친다 .② 새로이 건물의 구분소유권을 승계하거나 취득한 자는 건물과 관련된 " 관리비 등의 납부 의무 일체를 승계하며, 승계 전에 발생한 운영위원회의 채무에 관하여도 책임을 진다 .관리주체는 승계 전 체납관리비 등을 완납하지 아니할 경우 전기, 수도 등의 공급을 하지 않거나 입주업무에 협조하지 아니할 수 있다 .제37조 ( 관리비 등 )① 관리비는 다음 각 호의 비목의 월별금액의 합계액으로 하고 세대별 부담액 산정방법은사용자 부담원칙 및 공평의 원칙에 따라야 한다 .1. 일반관리비2. 청소비3. 경비비4. 소독비5. 승강기 및 화물 엘리베이터 유지비6. 급탕비7. 수선유지비8. 지능형 홈네트워크 설비 유지비9. 관리 용역비 ( 위탁수수료 )10. 전기료11. 공동전기료12. 수도료13. 공동수도료14. 소방시설 점검비15. 배상 책임보험료16. 장기 ( 특별 ) 수선충당금, 대손충당금17. 기타제39조 ( 연체료 등 )입주사는 매월 소요되는 관리비를 납부하지 아니하고 연체할 경우 운영위원회 의결에 따라 연체료를 가산하고 ( 연 최대 20 % ), 2개월 이상 연체 시 단전, 단수, 유 · 무료 주차권 정지 등의 필요한 조치를 할 수 있으며, 이로 인한 피해는 입주사가 책임진다 . 3 ) 원고가 구성되고 관리업체가 선정되었음에도 M이 C와의 종합관리용역 도급계약을 근거로 이 사건 집합건물의 관리사무소를 계속 점유하면서 원고 측의 건물 관리 업무를 방해하자, 원고와 N은 M을 상대로 이 사건 집합건물의 관리업무를 방해하는 행위의 금지를 구하는 가처분을 신청하여 2015. 11. 24. 대구지방법원 김천지원 2015 카합10011호로 일부 인용결정을 받았고, 같은 내용의 본안소송을 제기하여 2016. 6 .

17. The Daegu District Court Decision 2015Gahap15828 rendered a partial cited judgment on the above judgment, and M appealed appealed on September 20, 2017, but the appeal was dismissed on September 20, 2017 (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na23978) and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 2018 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da271032). The Plaintiff, after receiving the above provisional disposition decision, is performing management by receiving delivery from M the management office, etc. of the instant condominium building.

D. The Defendant did not pay management expenses for the 72 units of this case until July 2016 from the date of filing the instant lawsuit on the management expenses for the section for exclusive use and common use until July 2016 from the date of acquisition of each ownership on the section for exclusive use and common use.

2) As to C and E, the truster of the instant condominium building, as well as E, the trustee of the instant condominium building

From October 2013 to the date of the loss of ownership, the management fee for section for exclusive use and section for common use was not paid.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s 1, 6 through 9, 18, Eul’s 1, 2, and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a management committee organized for the management of the aggregate building of this case pursuant to the management rules.

The defendant is entitled to collect management expenses from the sectional owner, and the defendant is obligated to jointly pay 486,482,80 won of management expenses for common areas unpaid by Eul, who is the previous sectional owner, for the common areas and the exclusive use areas and the management expenses incurred from July 2016 to July 2016, except subparagraph 721, 1012 of the 74 units and subparagraph 221, 280, 430, 320, 285, 285, 204, 2535, 205, 275, 365, and damages for delay from the date of acquisition of each ownership.

A. Article 23(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that if a sectional ownership relationship with respect to a building is established, all sectional owners consisting of the building and the management body established to carry out the business of managing the site and attached facilities." Thus, the management body is not an organization established only through an organizational act but an organization formed by sectional ownership as a member of all sectional owners if there is a building established by sectional ownership relationship (Supreme Court Decision 2002 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 202

2. 27. See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45284 Decided 27.

If the number of sectional owners is ten or more, a manager shall be appointed by resolution of the management body meeting (Article 24(1) and (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act); the manager shall take the responsibility to pay management expenses to the manager who is duly authorized by the management body under the Aggregate Buildings Act or the manager who is duly authorized by the management body, for the preservation, management, and change of common areas; for the management body's affairs, for the amount and expenses to be borne by each sectional owner, for the management body's affairs, for the management body's affairs, for the management body's affairs, and for the management of the amount (Article 25(

On the other hand, the seller of buildings and sites shall manage the building and site with the care of a good manager until the management body commences, and where the sectional owner fails to convene a management body meeting to establish regulations and appoint a manager within three months from the date at least 1/2 of the pre-determined buyers do not register the transfer, he/she shall convene a management body meeting without delay (Article 9-3(1) and (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act).

2) However, in a situation where a management body of an aggregate building is not actually organized, among sectional owners.

If the owner who is one of the owners becomes the main body and has actually managed the sectional ownership through the controlled entity, it shall not be considered as the autonomous management by the management body, and it shall not be considered as the autonomous management by the management body, and the owner has still become the main body of the sectional ownership, even though it was impossible to rearrange the organization for self-management after the establishment of the management body, received the management right from the owner and did not commence self-management,

The authority and responsibility for the management of the sectionally owned building is not vested in the management body, as long as the owner has been managed by the owner (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da12054 delivered on December 10, 1996, etc.).

(b) judgment;

The above facts are as follows, i.e., ① even though the aggregate building was completed on August 201, most of the partitioned buildings, the construction contractor acquired 160 rooms among 260 units under the contract for the acquisition of the responsibility of the project agreement of this case, and the rest of the units was the trustee's completion of the registration of preservation of ownership, ② the construction contractor and the truster were appointed M as the management entity, ② the management entity of the aggregate building of this case for more than 3 years, ③ the sectional owner of the aggregate building of this case held a management body meeting and formed the plaintiff. The plaintiff and NN did not receive the acquisition share of the building management from M, ④ The plaintiff and NN did not receive the acquisition share of the building management by the management entity of this case, ④ the plaintiff and NN did not have the grounds for the commencement of the management business of the aggregate building of this case by applying for a provisional disposition prohibiting interference with the management activities of M&M of this case, and the plaintiff's autonomous management business of this case was not maintained by the management entity of this case and M&M of this case.

In full view of the fact that the above management expenses claim shall belong to C or M, and that C or M shall not be deemed to lose the right to collect management expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da46570, Mar. 10, 2016), etc., it is reasonable to view that, before November 23, 2015, C or M, the owner of the building, or M, delegated with the management authority by the owner, has the right to collect management expenses, and that, after November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff or the agency delegated with the management authority by the owner, has the right to collect management expenses.

4. Determination on the claim for management expenses for the unpaid section for common use incurred in relation to the 74 units of this case

A. According to the above facts, the special successor from 233 among the 78 units of this case is limited to K, 1020 and 1021, and the special successor from 78 units of this case is the joint successor from K, 1020 and 1021. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is based on the premise that the defendant is the special successor from 4 units of the above 4 units of the special successor from 78 units of this case.

10. From November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2015, the part seeking the payment of management expenses for the section for common use is without merit without further need to determine other points.

B. From July 28, 2015 to November 24, 2015, the fact that the Defendant transferred the ownership of the instant 74 units from E is as seen earlier. The part concerning the management fee for common areas in the management agreement that allows the special successor of the former sectional owner to succeed the delinquent management fee of the former sectional owner is valid as it is based on Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, 3604, Jun. 29, 2006). However, the Plaintiff did not have the right to collect the management fee incurred before November 23, 2015 regarding the instant aggregate building. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the management fee for common areas in this case is not necessary as to the amount of the management fee for common areas incurred during the period from October 23, 2013 to November 23, 2015.

5. Determination on the claim for management expenses and late payment charges incurred after November 24, 2015 with respect to the instant 72 family rooms.

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) The defendant is the sectional owner of the 72 heading rooms of this case, and is obliged to pay all the common areas in each heading room, the management expenses for the section for exclusive use, and the arrears due to the delinquency in the management expenses, as prescribed by the management rules.

However, on May 18, 2017, when the Defendant sold Nos. 1019 among the instant 72 heading rooms to P, the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 5,886,540 to the Plaintiff, which is the overdue management expenses up to June 26, 2017 for the said heading rooms, is no dispute between the parties, and the management expenses and the late payment charges that the Plaintiff seeks by the instant lawsuit regarding the said 1019 are less than 4,154,670 won, and the management expenses and the late payment charges that the Plaintiff sought by the instant lawsuit regarding the said 1019 were all paid after November 24, 2015 (2). Ultimately, regarding the remainder of 71 heading rooms except for subparagraph 1019 among the instant 72 heading rooms.

11. The management expenses incurred from October 2016 to July 2016 are KRW 157,00,03,826 in total, KRW 22,838,574 in total, and KRW 22,838,574 in total [in the case of management expenses for November 2015, 64 units 1 in which the Defendant acquired the ownership before October 2015), out of the management expenses for November 201 equivalent to the amount calculated by the Plaintiff.

24. From November 30 to November 30, 200, the calculation shall be made for seven days (less than Won; hereinafter the same shall apply) and for two houses that acquired ownership on November 6, 2015, the calculation shall be made for seven days out of the management expenses for November 25 days calculated by the Plaintiff, and for those two houses that acquired ownership on November 24, 2015, the management expenses for the above houses shall not be recognized, since the management expenses are not imposed on subparagraph B12, and for those four houses that acquired ownership on November 19, 2015, the management expenses for the above houses shall not be calculated on seven days out of the management expenses for November 24, 2015 corresponding to the portion calculated by the Plaintiff, and for those houses that acquired ownership on November 24, 2015, all of the management expenses corresponding to the portion of seven days calculated by the Plaintiff shall be recognized.

3) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 179, 842,40 in management expenses and late payment charges of the rest 72 family units ( = 157,003, 826 won + 22, 838, 574 won), and damages for delay.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) Claim on the amount of loss contribution

The defendant asserts that the inclusion of the management expenses in the management expenses is not subject to the item of the management expenses under the management rules, and therefore, the plaintiff did not undergo the procedures for amendment of the regulations under Article 29 (1) of the Multi-Family Building Act, or obtained the defendant's consent. The above loss contributions were generated during the period in which the plaintiff did not have the right to collect the management expenses, so the amount calculated as the loss contributions should be excluded from the management expenses.

However, in addition to the above facts of recognition, the following circumstances are acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 35 to 38, Eul evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 16, and the purport of Gap evidence No. 16 as a whole, namely, the plaintiff's February 2016.

2. By the resolution of the self-governing committee, the amount of claims, such as management expenses that the plaintiff had not received for a long time from the defendant, etc., were disposed of as deficit contributions, appropriated in the management expenses, collected the claims through subsequent litigation, etc., and then proposed to the general meeting of shareholders the items to be refunded en bloc to the occupant company.

In light of the fact that the above agenda was resolved at the ordinary meeting of the self-management body, and the deficit contribution belongs to the "share prescribed in Article 10 (4) of the Management Rules", it is difficult to view that the resolution to dispose of the loss as above constitutes an amendment to the management rules. Since February 2, 2013, the plaintiff decided to set a fixed rate for the deficit incurred by some occupants, including the defendant, etc., and to impose the management fees uniformly according to the ratio of the area of sectional ownership to the sectional owners, this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

2) Claim on the appropriation of excessive management expenses

While it is insufficient to recognize that the management expenses imposed on the Defendant by the Defendant under the evidence Nos. 24 through 28 are calculated in excess of the actual amount, in light of the respective statements in the evidence No. 16, 20 through 26 submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any unlawful or unreasonable points due to the calculation and imposition of the management expenses for the aggregate building of this case, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable. 3) The Defendant’s assertion that there was no cause attributable to the nonperformance of the management expenses.

Although the defendant demanded the plaintiff to disclose the details of management expenses to the plaintiff on May 12, 2016, the plaintiff refused to comply therewith, and therefore the defendant has no obligation to pay late payment fees due to the lack of any cause attributable to the unpaid management expenses.

Article 26 (1) of the Multi-Family Building Act provides that "the manager shall report his/her affairs to the sectional owners at least once a year, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the affairs to be reported by the manager pursuant to Article 26 (1) of the Act shall be as follows:

- Matters concerning the details of accumulation (hereinafter referred to as "the details of accumulation") are stipulated as "." However, the above provisions merely impose a duty to report the contents of the management body's affairs at least once a year on the administrator who executes the management body's affairs, and there is no ground to deem that there is any quid pro quo relation between the manager's duty to report and the duty to pay the management expenses. Furthermore, according to each of the evidence Nos. 16 and 17, the Plaintiff appears to notify the sectional owners including the Defendant of the details of the management expenses incurred in the whole building of the details of the management expenses incurred in the whole building of this case every month. Thus, there is no ground to justify the Defendant's failure to pay the management expenses. The Defendant's assertion is rejected.

Although the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff imposed an unreasonably excessive late payment charge contrary to Article 11(1) of the management contract (Evidence A No. 16) but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the management fee was calculated excessively, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

5) Claim that part of the family room has no liability to pay management expenses

The defendant asserts that the possessor of B209 is the plaintiff and the possessor of B108, B12, B15, 206, 207, 1001, 102, 1006, and 1022 are Q208, and the possessor of B209 is a stock company and Q208, and the defendant is not the person liable for management expenses. However, according to the above facts, the defendant is deemed to be jointly liable for management expenses with the possessor of the above subparagraph 4 pursuant to Article 10 (5) of the Management Rules. Since other persons or other companies possess the above subparagraph 1, they do not exempt the defendant's liability for payment of management expenses for the above 1, B15, B15, 206, 207, 106, 1006, and 102, and 1022, the defendant did not have the obligation to pay for the above part of common areas from 20 to 1,201,2061,27, and 261,27.

B) If the management entity, such as a management entity of an aggregate building, committed an unlawful act interfering with the use of the building by taking measures to stop the operation of the building, and thus the owner of the building could not gain profit from the use of the building, the owner of the building does not bear the obligation to pay management expenses incurred during that period. In addition, it is insufficient to say that the measure, such as electricity and water supply, was lawful and was in accordance with the management rules in order to not constitute a tort. It is limited to the case where it is reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms in light of various circumstances, such as the motive, purpose, means, and method of the measure, the circumstances leading to the measure, the degree of damage suffered by the occupant, etc., and thus, it can be deemed an act lacking in illegality (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, Jun. 29, 2006; 2004Da3604, Jun. 29, 2006).

C) Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 13, 42, Eul evidence Nos. 13 through 15, and 19, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s measures to cut off or cut off the number of rooms Nos. 112 and Nos. 205-208, Jun. 14, 2016. The Plaintiff took measures to cut off all of the rest of the partitioned buildings owned by the Defendant on December 5, 2016. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff cancelled the cutting-off and cutting-off measures on the rest of the partitioned buildings owned by the Defendant except for No. 1101-1104, Dec. 18, 2015.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the evidence, Gap evidence 27 through 31, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 8, 9, 10, 34, and 36, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the measures to stop the operation of power and escalators taken by the plaintiff as above are reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms. Thus, it is difficult to view the plaintiff's measures to stop the operation of power and escalators as unlawful interference with the use of the plaintiff's measures to stop the operation of power and escalators. Accordingly, the other defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① Article 39 of the Management Rules provides that "the tenant may take necessary measures, such as the short-term period of arrears, the suspension of oil or free parking tickets, etc. for more than two months, and Article 21 subparagraph 10 of the Management Rules provides that "the matters concerning the management of common areas shall undergo a resolution by the Management Committee, and the resolution shall be passed with the consent of a majority of the registered members of the Management Committee." [Article 21 subparagraph 10 of the Management Rules, the defendant asserts that the above Management Rules have no effect on the defendant because the defendant, who is the special successor, did not explicitly or implicitly approve Article 21 subparagraph 10 of the Management Rules." However, Article 42 of the Management Rules of the Management Rules provides that "the effect of Article 42 of the Management Rules of the Management Rules shall also be effective on the special successor of the sectional owner," and Article 12 (1) of the Management Rules of the Management Rules shall also be effective on the defendant regardless of whether the defendant's approval or not." Therefore, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

② From July 28, 2015 to November 24, 2015, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant 72 heading room from July 28, 2015, and thereafter is disputing the calculation of the Plaintiff and the management expenses.

16. The Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million as part of the unpaid management expenses, and sold it to G Co., Ltd. on April 25, 2016, and did not pay management expenses, except for the unpaid management expenses for the above partitioned building, KRW 2,777,750.

③ Since the instant building consists of 260 units, and the Defendant owned 72 units among them, the management expenses to be paid by the Defendant during the period from November 24, 2015 to July 2016, approximately 27% of the total management expenses of the instant building. Nevertheless, the Defendant continued to pay the management expenses, and the Plaintiff was given a warning from the Korea Electric Power Corporation due to the delinquency in paying electricity.

④ On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’s demand for management expenses, and subsequently took measures to cut off six partitioned buildings, such as B12, 205, 206, 207, 208, 1001 among the instant 72 units. The Defendant filed an application for a provisional injunction against cutting off water (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Kahap1050), but the said court rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on January 11, 2017, stating that the former measure taken by the Plaintiff was reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms. The Defendant appealed against the foregoing decision (Seoul High Court Decision 2017Ra311), and the said court revoked the first decision of the first instance court on July 17, 2017, but the Defendant’s claim for management expenses constituted an unlawful act under Article 217 subparag. 15, 201, which constituted a single-use district court’s decision on July 17, 2016.

⑤ The Plaintiff is a factory room that the Defendant, who owns most of the above units from the first floor to the second floor above the ground, did not pay the management expenses and did not use the units as the occupants in the above units.

When it is difficult to cover the expenses for the repair of escalators in several circumstances (the cost of KRW 7 million to KRW 10 million) and the operation of escalators was suspended on December 18, 2015. The suspension of operation of escalators constitutes "management of common areas", and the Plaintiff decided to suspend the operation of escalators from January 1, 2016 to December 28, 2015, in accordance with Article 21 subparagraph 10 of the Management Rules (the suspension of operation of escalators was ratified by the Plaintiff’s resolution after suspending operation of escalators). Furthermore, when the Defendant pays unpaid management expenses, he/she may request the Plaintiff to resume the operation of escalators through the repair and inspection of escalators at any time.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant, except for subparagraph 1019 among the 72 units of this case, shall be 179,842,40 won in total ( = 157,03,826 won + 22,838,574 won in total) with respect to unpaid management expenses and late fees for the remaining 71 units of the 72 units of this case, and shall be 22,838,574 won in total on the date following the delivery of a copy of the application for correction of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim stated by the plaintiff's expression of intent to request the performance as to the plaintiff.

12. By the time of 19.19., 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair with the conclusion, the part against the defendant who accepted part of the defendant's appeal and ordered payment in excess of the above cited amount shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and both the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining