logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.03.21 2017나8358
관리비
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In order to manage and operate the site and building of “A” (hereinafter “instant building”), which is an aggregate building located in the Seoul metropolitan building at the time of strike, the Plaintiff is a management body comprised of all sectional owners pursuant to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and managed the instant building and imposed and collected management fees on the occupants.

B. The Defendant is a sectional owner of the 1st floor store and 10 other stores (hereinafter “each of the instant stores”) of the instant building.

C. The Defendant’s unpaid management expenses related to each of the instant stores from July 2015 to March 2017 are KRW 6,398,070, and late payment charges are KRW 1,176,310.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6 through 8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 7,574,380 (=management fee of KRW 6,398,070 plus KRW 1,176,310) and the unpaid management fee of KRW 6,398,070, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order from April 22, 2017 to the day of full payment, delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that ① the Plaintiff did not process the Plaintiff’s management and operation committee’s election and voting process, and ② the Plaintiff did not disclose the management expenses, ② the Plaintiff calculated and imposed the management expenses for private use, etc. However, even if the above circumstances are acknowledged, such circumstance alone cannot be said to be exempted from the Defendant’s liability, and the following circumstances revealed by the entries in subparagraphs 3 through 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff’s management expenses for unpaid management expenses for the period from July 2012 to June 2015.

arrow