logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2014가단5262481
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The electricity charge for the disaster prevention room from March 2009 to September 2012 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is 11,376.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The filial ice, located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 183 (Human Dong) (hereinafter “instant building”), consists of apartment buildings, officetels, and commercial buildings. The Plaintiff is an organization organized for the management of the commercial part of the instant building, and the Defendant is an organization organized for the management of apartment buildings and officetels parts among the instant building.

B. By up to 2012, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the volume of electricity used and the volume of water used for each household of apartment and officetel by checking the volume of electricity used and the volume of water used for each household, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the electric and water charges according to the volume used. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the electric and water

C. There is a disaster prevention room on the first floor of the instant building, which is installed for the entire apartment, officetels, and commercial buildings, and the Defendant has paid the electricity charges of the said disaster prevention room from November 2006.

On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement, setting monthly usage fee of KRW 1,00,000,000 on the part of pedestrian passages, approximately 570 cm between the Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and 48-2 (hereinafter “instant passage”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 4-2, Eul evidence No. 5-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the principal lawsuit, the confirmation of the absence of the electricity charge obligation of the disaster prevention room and the determination of the counterclaim claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties that the Defendant did not have a debt of KRW 11,376,230 from March 2009 to September 2012.

From November 2006 to July 2015, the Defendant paid the electricity fee of the disaster prevention room to prevent the whole building of this case from spreading.

arrow