beta
Text
1. The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The facts below the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 28 (including the branch numbers if there are branch numbers), and the whole purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged. There is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition.
A. The Plaintiff completed the procedures for reporting large-scale store managers to the head of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office on September 4, 2013 pursuant to the former Distribution Industry Development Act (amended by Act No. 14997, Oct. 31, 2017; hereinafter “former Distribution Industry Development Act”) with respect to the shopping mall in this case, which is a 7th underground and 16th ground building located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “D shopping mall”), which is a 16th ground building (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”), and processes the collection of management fees as a large store manager.
B. On July 1, 2009, the Defendant is a separate owner who acquired the ownership of the six-story E and F (hereinafter “instant store”) of the shopping mall No. 6 of this case.
(c)
The Defendant did not pay the total amount of KRW 4,277,720 (i.e., management expenses and arrears of KRW 3,476,780 for unpaid management expenses) incurred from January 2014 to May 2016 (i.e., late payment charges of KRW 800,940 for unpaid management expenses).
2. The defendant's argument on the argument before the merits presented prior to the merits that the plaintiff has no right to collect management expenses, and therefore, the plaintiff's argument on the merits that the plaintiff is not qualified as the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994; 9Da14797, Oct. 7, 2005; 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005); however, the defendant's argument prior to the merits is without merit.
3. The former Distribution Industry Development Act, which determines the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, is not a management part under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Act”) established annually with all sectional owners.