logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.05 2018나77267
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was the representative director of C (hereinafter “C”) who managed the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B (hereinafter “instant building”) and was the person who resigned from the representative director on May 31, 2017.

The defendant is a non-corporate body with the aim of implementing projects concerning the management of the building of this case by making all sectional owners of the building of this case as members.

B. On January 16, 2015, the Defendant entrusted C with the management of the instant building.

C. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the provision of Internet and TV services with the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on the 29-time Internet and the 145-time Internet TV sets set up in the instant building.

E is seeking from November 2017 to February 2018 the Plaintiff to pay the fee of KRW 6,225,857 for the Internet and Internet TV set up in the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 21, 22 and 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not pay management fees including fees for the use of the Internet and television from the sectional owner or lessee of the instant building from December 2017, and did not pay them to E. As such, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff assume the obligation to pay KRW 6,225,857 in total from December 2017 to February 2018. The Defendant is liable to return unjust enrichment.

3. According to each of the evidence Nos. 4, 8, 24, and 31 (including paper numbers), the defendant collected money directly from the sectional owners of the building of this case from December 2017, and the management fee Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 16, and 21 to 25, although it is recognized that the management fee No. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 16, and 21 to 25, respectively.

arrow