beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, as the sectional owners of the instant commercial building, have the obligation to pay the principal and late payment penalty of KRW 43,879,774 from June 2014 to September 2016, as the principal and late payment penalty of KRW 43,879,774, and the late payment penalty of KRW 39,890,714.
(The court of first instance accepted the defendants' letter of deduction from the revenue amount of the parking lot common use area as seen below and accepted only the amount of KRW 1,621,362 from the above 43,879,774 to the above 1,621,362. However, for the following reasons, as long as the defendants' letter of deduction from the revenue amount of the parking lot common use area is not well-grounded, it is reasonable to accept the full amount of KRW 43,879,774
1) The Defendants asserted the deduction of revenues from common areas, such as parking lots, asserted that it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to claim the deduction of revenues from the parking lots, despite the Plaintiff’s operating revenues, rent revenues, etc., which are common areas. According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments, the Plaintiff calculated the management fees imposed on the shop occupants or the sectional owners, it can be recognized that the sum of the total management expenses to be imposed after deducting revenues such as parking fees, etc. from the total monthly management expenses. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion as to water fees and value-added taxes is without merit. 2) The Defendants asserted as to water fees and value-added taxes is unreasonable to impose the management fees in addition to the value-added tax on water charges, etc. for which the instant commercial area is not subject to value-added tax.
According to the evidence No. 21, the plaintiff is imposed.