beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 10,589,166 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 21, 2018 to August 28, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the shares of 2 E-(4,689.025 square meters in exclusive use area, 364.65 square meters in public use area), 275,901,069/619,190,000 of the 3-story F (exclusive use area, 1,655.40 square meters in common use area, 128.725 square meters in common use area), 1,961/2,00 of the 4-story G (exclusive use area, 3,979.967 square meters in common use area, 309.524 square meters in public use area, 3,117/37,58.15 square meters in common use area, 305 square meters in public use area, 37.25 square meters in public use area, 302.25 square meters in public use area)
(B) In addition to the above Plaintiff’s real estate, each of the instant real estate is composed of 8,532.95 square meters in a sectioned building for the use of the commercial building (exclusive 7,917.245 square meters in common, 615.750 square meters in common) and 21,386.985 square meters in a sectioned building for the use of the parking lot (exclusive 19,843.750 square meters in common, 1,543.235 square meters in common, not the common use area of the commercial building). Each of the instant real estate is continuously used as part of the instant parking lot among the sections for the use of the parking lot.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 19, 20 (including virtual number), 21 evidence and evidence Nos. 1 and 21, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, around July 20, 2017, Defendant B became the chairperson of the shopping mall conference formed only a part of the sectional owners of the instant shopping mall and obstructed the Plaintiff’s business activities by having Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) manage the instant shopping mall at his/her discretion, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted that, around August 28, 2017, the Defendants should compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the removal of the inducement parking zone, etc. installed in the instant shopping mall without permission (total damages 29,195,00 x 67.71%) and ② from September 2017 to June 2018 (16,750 x 100 x 10 months).
B. The recognition of the commercial building of this case 1.