logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.23 2013나74419
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law who is a director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) in the first instance trial.

The defendant is a member of the H association, who is a management body composed of two sectional owners of F and G-based commercial buildings (a Dong and B, hereinafter the above two buildings are collectively referred to as the "instant building"), which is the one and the sectional owners of B-dong 178 of the building in this case.

B. 1) On March 29, 2007, H made an investment agreement with I to assign the ownership of the part of the extension to H association, but grant I the right to operate the extension for 10 years, to the H association, in order to promote the business of operating the health clubs and Buddhist rains, etc. after the extension of the instant building. 2) H association commenced the extension construction after obtaining a construction permit on February 21, 2008. However, the construction was suspended after the completion of the construction work on the part of the instant building on May 2009.

3) On February 22, 2010, H Union extended the instant building on the second floor with D’s effort and cost to carry out the extension construction of the instant building, and reverted ownership to H Union. However, on the part of D’s extension, H Union has exclusive right to use and benefit from sea water bath, soup, soup, singry, and health clubs, etc. for 20 years (hereinafter “instant investment contract”).

(C) The Defendant’s establishment of the Internet Cafeng and the Plaintiff, etc., expressed in a critical writing. Some of the sectional owners of the instant building had an opposing opinion about D’s project promoted, and the Defendant was one of those who had an opposing opinion. On April 22, 2011, the Defendant was the Internet Cafe (J; hereinafter “instant Internet Cafe”) under the title “Non-Subrogation of HA” (J; hereinafter “instant Internet Cafe”).

(1) open.

arrow