logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.30 2017나18160
관리비
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The member-gu Seoul Building Non-dong (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) had been registered as an aggregate building on April 14, 2003 with respect to each of the separate stores, and the registration of ownership was completed on April 14, 2003 with respect to each of the separate stores.

B. Of the instant commercial buildings, Nos. 406 of the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant separate shop”) was originally registered as the ownership of D and 4 other, and the ownership was transferred to E on July 13, 2006 to F on July 23, 2012, and part of F’s shares was transferred to G, H, I, J, and K during the period from December 27, 2012 to August 2, 2013, and the Plaintiff owned the exclusive ownership of the instant separate shop as of the date all the shares of 5 other co-owners were transferred to the Plaintiff on the ground of sale by voluntary auction on April 29, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff, as a controlled entity of commercial buildings, etc., entered into a building management agreement with D on March 20, 2003, and managed the instant commercial buildings. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a building management agreement (hereinafter “instant management agreement”) with M, “the Chairperson of the Managing Body of LAB Building,” and actually manages the instant commercial buildings until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3, and 7 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a legitimate management company entrusted with the management affairs by the managing body of the instant commercial building. The Defendant is seeking payment of KRW 22,18,029, as the total management expenses for the instant sectional store from August 2014 to May 2017, including the unpaid management expenses by the former owner (hereinafter “instant imposition period”).

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff is a legitimate management company of the instant commercial building (1) The Plaintiff’s claim of this case from the management body of the instant commercial building around March 2015.

arrow