logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.23 2014가단40219
관리비
Text

1. The part of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant (appointed party) shall be dismissed.

2. The Selection C shall be the Plaintiff 15.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a management body consisting of sectional owners in the building A, the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) owned Nos. 251 and 252 of the second floor in operation of the said building (hereinafter “each of the instant stores”). Around January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred his/her ownership to the designated parties C for sale and purchase and is operating his/her business on the leased site. The appointed parties C was a person who acquired the ownership of each of the instant stores from Defendant B through sale and purchase around January 13, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B and Selection C”). B

Defendant B owned each of the instant stores and failed to pay the management expenses from around 2008, and even though the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the payment of the delinquent management expenses each month, Defendant B did not pay the management expenses at the time.

C. As of November 30, 2013, the amount imposed from January 1, 2011 to October 2013 among the management expenses for the store No. 251 in the instant case (i.e., common areas of KRW 18,621,878 in common areas of KRW 7,005,872 in common areas of KRW 18,621), and the amount imposed from January 1, 201 to September 201 among the management expenses for the store No. 252 in the instant case of KRW 3,439,940 in total (i.e., common areas of KRW 2,069, KRW 1,370,679 in common areas of KRW 261 in common areas of KRW 1,370,679 in), Defendant B designated the management expenses for the store No. 251 in May 13, 2013 and paid the management expenses for KRW 304.736,737.7.403

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1-1~1-3, 2-4, 7, 8, and Eul 1's contents, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since D, other than the legitimate representative of the Plaintiff, was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants’ term of office of D, the representative of the Plaintiff at the time the lawsuit of this case was filed, is August 28, 2013.

arrow