logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.04.27 2015가합21048
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The related defendant of the parties is a reconstruction association established for the purpose of implementing a reconstruction project with the members of the owners of the “B apartment and B apartment commercial building” on June 30, 2003, Ulsan-gu, and 15, Ulsan-gu, and the plaintiff was the owner of B apartment commercial building underground floor 2.

In the absence of any dispute, Gap No. 9

B. 1) On July 4, 2013, the Defendant prepared a separate management and disposal plan for apartment and commercial buildings, and finally made a resolution at the general meeting of the entire members of the commercial building, and prepared and amended the management and disposal plan by setting up a separate management and disposal plan for apartment and commercial buildings.

3) Newly constructed commercial buildings pursuant to reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as “new commercial buildings”).

A) The general meeting of the commercial union members was held on July 13, 2013 on the agenda items, including the allocation and its criteria, the settlement criteria of existing commercial buildings, the criteria for cash settlement amount under the instant agreement, etc., and the said agenda items were resolved at the general meeting of the commercial union members. The Defendant’s general meeting was held on July 27, 2013 on the agenda items including the contents resolved at the general meeting of the commercial union members, such as the instant agreement.

No. 2, No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and No. 5) The plaintiff did not apply for the sale of the defendant during the period of the contract for sale in lots (from September 11, 2013 to September 13, 2013). The defendant tried to pay cash settlement money calculated based on the agreement of this case, but the plaintiff did not receive it, and around December 30, 2014.

arrow