logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.21 2013나33904
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence submitted at the court of first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff paid service costs of 15,700,000 won under the security contract of this case to the management body of this case on the defendant's request, and Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 to 3, and Gap No. 10 shall be rejected; "the person elected as the representative" of 2,90,10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be selected as the representative, but it shall not meet the requirements for legitimate representative" of 3,00 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 201Kahap91" of 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "No. 2010Kahap91", "the management body of this case shall be paid at will from 201 to 31,500 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and "the last 3,015th judgment of the judgment of this case shall be paid fees to the plaintiff 2.

“(3) The Defendant, at the instant assembly on November 18, 2009, was elected as the representative of the management body, and was actually engaged in activities as the representative with the identification number indicated as the representative of the instant building from the head of Ansan Tax Office on January 8, 2010. Thus, even if the court later determined that the Defendant’s representative is denied, the Defendant believed that the Defendant was qualified as the representative of the management body of the instant building at the time of the instant management contract, and was not negligent in believing that the management contract of this case was not the Defendant’s representative. Rather, the management contract of this case was recommended by the Plaintiff’s representative, who did not have any problem as the Defendant’s representative.

arrow