logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.14 2016나2822
관리비
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

1. The Plaintiff seeking the payment of KRW 10,63,350 of the delinquent management expenses from April 2, 2014 to September 2015 against the Defendants, co-owners of the first floor Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 301, and 501, among the DNA Condominium-gun D Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-gun Condominium-do Condominium-do Condominium-do Condominium-do Condominium-do Condominium-do Condominium

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff is only one of the sectional owners of the instant condominiums, and that there is no standing to file a lawsuit for management expenses.

According to Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”), if a sectional ownership relationship is established with respect to a building, a management body is established with the aim of carrying out the business on the management of building, site and attached facilities by all sectional owners as members of sectional owners. The management body is an organization established by the management body, not by any organization but by a group of sectional owners, if a building is established

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4985 Decided March 28, 2013, etc.). In addition, even if there is no management body regulation, etc. in force for the collection of management expenses under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, at least the management expenses for common areas may be claimed against the sectional owner, who is the person liable to pay the management expenses, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da22266, 22273 Decided July 9, 2009). As above, the management body shall be deemed to be the person liable to pay the management expenses, and the person liable to pay the management expenses

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is merely a sectional owner of the fourth floor, 402, 403, and 404 among the aggregate buildings of this case, and it does not constitute a management body under the Aggregate Buildings Act.

Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that he was legally appointed as a manager representing the management body, but the plaintiff submitted it.

arrow