logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.04.23 2019나51114
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From the end of March 1, 2017, Plaintiff A was the chairperson of the Residents' Self-Governing Council of total of 17 households E Apartments located in Guro-gu Seoul (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), Plaintiff B was the general manager of the above Residents' Self-Governing Council, and the Defendant was the general manager of the apartment of this case from March 1, 2017.

B. From March 2017, disputes arose between the plaintiffs, the defendant, and some of the residents of the apartment of this case with the execution of the management expenses of the apartment of this case.

The defendant representing some of the plaintiffs requested confirmation of the management expenses execution account and construction-related account books, etc., and the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendant as defamation.

C. On June 13, 2017, the Defendant prepared and sent to the Plaintiffs a letter that “The Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office (“Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office”) caused defamation in the case of accusation, No. 27238, 2017, and the Plaintiffs do not suspicion any matter that occurred during the period in which they were the chairman of the autonomous council and the general secretary-general, or undergo examination with other residents, or do any other act that may impair the honor of the Plaintiffs (Provided, That if specific circumstances or clear evidence exist, they may bring a suspicion).” Accordingly, the Plaintiffs revoked their complaint against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion (1) stated to the purport that there was a suspicion for the Plaintiffs to return management expenses on the grounds that there was no passbook for the execution of the management expenses before 2016 at the neighborhood meeting of the instant apartment complex held around April 19, 2018. ② On May 1, 2018, the details of the purchase money cannot be known to the residents of F in the instant apartment parking lot due to the lack of an apartment passbook prior to 2016.

arrow