logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가단34045
관리비
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 34,824,380 and KRW 31,948,050 among them, from November 7, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a management body composed of sectional owners in the Daejeon Ptel building Atel building located in Daejeon U.S., and the Defendant is the owner of the first floor in the above building.

B. The above subparagraph D is registered with the management office as E, F, and G.

C. From April 201 to June 201, 2015, the Defendant did not pay 28,195,650 won for management expenses of subparagraph E, and 2,631,570 won for late payment, and 2,428,090 won for management expenses from March 2009 to June 2015 for subparagraph F, and 158,530 won for late payment, and 1,324,310 won for management expenses from March 2009 to June 2015 for subparagraph G, and 86,530 won for late payment, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, as the plaintiff seeks, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 34,824,380 won, which is the sum of the management expenses and arrears in arrears, and 31,824,380 won, which is the sum of the management expenses in arrears, and the 31,824,380 won, which is the sum of the management expenses in arrears, from November 7, 2015 to the date of full payment, the amount calculated by 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff is unable to properly manage the Category D, and that the waste is stored and the entrance is obstructed, so it cannot be paid management expenses.

However, it is not sufficient to admit this part of the defendant's assertion only with the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The defendant's assertion is without merit without any need to examine it.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

arrow