beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The basic facts of the claim ① The name of the aggregate building located in Ansan-si Group C:
A. A. It is used as a building of reinforced concrete structure of 6th and upper floors, as a building of 2nd and upper floors, sales facilities, and neighborhood living facilities;
(A) The building management organization consisting of the sectional owners and the occupants of the above building, and the Defendant is a sectioned building A No. 212 (S. sales facility for steel reinforced concrete; 17.22m2m2) (hereinafter “instant building”).
) The fact that he is the owner (the owner has been since the completion of the registration of ownership transfer on December 7, 1989) is the owner.
(2) Article 54 subparagraph 1 of the Plaintiff’s Rules provides that “When a person liable for the payment of management expenses fails to pay the management expenses, 10% of the delinquent amount shall be paid in addition to the payment from the expiration date of the payment period set by the management entity (which shall be deemed the end of the month following the month in which the management expenses are imposed).” (3) The Defendant is collectively referred to as “management expenses” and the late payment charges (which shall be collectively referred to as “management expenses” for the building in this case from January 2, 200 to February 2017.
) The fact that the sum of KRW 26,789,040 is not paid (the sum of the unpaid management expenses from April 2014 to February 2017) is KRW 4,958,340.
2) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unpaid management expenses of KRW 26,789,040 and damages for delay for the unpaid management expenses of KRW 26,789,040, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance. (2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the payment of the management expenses should be made in full, because it is unfair in equity, even if he left the building of this case without using the building of this case, it should be reduced in part, but the above assertion has no grounds for reduction of the management expenses as alleged by the Plaintiff.