(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가단528496

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가단528496

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization organized for the management of Suwon-si A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into an entrustment management agreement with the Plaintiff regarding the management of the instant apartment between June 5, 2015 and June 4, 2018, and Defendant C was working as the head of each of the instant apartment management offices from July 23, 2014 to July 31, 2015, and from August 1, 2015 to March 6, 2016.

B. On June 22, 2015, the E Association took a measure of failure to pass a regular facility inspection conducted on the instant apartment Fdong (hereinafter “instant playground”). On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff resolved to remove the instant playground at the council of occupants’ representatives at the 17th regular council of occupants’ representatives on July 21, 2015, and to re- install the instant playground with support from Suwon City (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

C. From August 3, 2015 to August 7, 2015, Defendant Company removed the instant playground, and at the time of removal, the construction cost necessary to restore the instant playground was appraised at KRW 51,880,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including the number of each branch), Eul evidence 1, the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser G of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was resolved to re-establish the instant playground with the support from the Si after the removal of the instant playground. As such, the Defendants, who were responsible for the management of the instant apartment, verified the requirements for receiving subsidies from the relevant statutes and the Si, and subsequently, breached the duty of care to remove the instant playground, and in violation of this duty of care, removed the instant playground without obtaining permission from the Suwon Market.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is therefore entitled to this case.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가합59036

-광주고등법원 2019.06.19 2018나25334

-광주지방법원목포지원 2017.10.19 2015가단9675

-대구지방법원 2017.06.29 2016나6482

-서울동부지방법원 2016.03.24 2015고정1999