beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's management expense obligation against the defendant does not exist more than KRW 1,234,404.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around May 2012, the Plaintiff sold the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Apartment 201, which he owned, to C, and due to the overdue problem that the Defendant, who is the council of occupants’ representatives of the above B apartment (including one and thirty-five households), imposed on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, who was an individual among real estate, kept KRW 7,00,000 out of the purchase price that the Plaintiff would receive, in custody.
B. Afterwards, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of KRW 7,00,000 against D as Seoul Eastern District Court 2012Gabu68038, but appealed upon dismissal judgment. However, the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2012Na1190 decided whether the Defendant had the obligation to pay the management expenses imposed on the Plaintiff by the appellate court, and the conciliation was concluded to settle the amount of the custody payment through separate lawsuits between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The defendant's assertion that the management expenses unpaid by the plaintiff are 4,766,770 won in total (=3,000,000 won in excess of 688,100 won in excess of 50,000 won in the embezzlement of expenses for repairing defects in apartment buildings, which are 1,028,670 won in excess of 68,100 won in excess of 50,000 won in excess of 68,100 won in excess of 953,354 won in excess of 953,354 [=4,76,770 won in excess of 4,76,770 】 0.2 (in excess of 1 year), the total amount is 5,720
From November 201 to May 2012, 201, it was confirmed that the Defendant paid management expense accounts of KRW 518,460, and the Defendant withdrawn its assertion.
Judgment
(1) The part of the amount of KRW 3,00,000, which was imposed on the act of disrupting the order of living, was written in the evidence Nos. 2-1, B-5, and 9, and the Defendant imposed KRW 3,00,000 on the Plaintiff lawfully and effectively in accordance with Article 76 of the Rules of the Multi-Family Housing Management Rules.