beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Status 1) The E, an aggregate building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”)
The management body shall follow the management rules with the consent of at least 3/4 of both sectional owners and voting rights (hereinafter “instant management rules”).
(2) The management rules of this case set forth the following as follows: (a) the management rules of this case set up a representative committee consisting of the representative members appointed in each zone to deliberate and decide on important matters concerning the management body affairs (Articles 30 and 31); (b) the president of the management body meeting was the president of the representative committee (Article 24); (c) the Plaintiff, who is the implementer of the new E business, appointed a person as the first manager for the smooth operation and efficient management of the E’s initial stage of the opening and appointment; (d) the management contract upon the appointment of the manager, shall be concluded by the representative committee and the manager (Article 40); and (e) the manager, on March 13, 2011, determined that “the management contract upon the appointment of the manager, shall be conducted by the representative committee and the manager” (Article 42); and (b) the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with the representative committee of the management body of this case to be entrusted with the management of the building of this case (hereinafter “management contract of this case”).
3) On November 15, 2011, the Defendant rendered No. 8th floor F of the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”).
(B) On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 11,918,070 and late payment 10,240 (Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Da37525) in aggregate of the management expenses from April 10, 2009 to April 10, 2013 regarding the store of this case.
The plaintiff's filing of a lawsuit is legitimate, but it is difficult to recognize that the defendant has a duty to succeed to the late payment charge of the former owner, and the management fee up to April 2010 shall be extinctive prescription.