[2] In a case where a superstore manager newly has the authority to impose and collect management expenses while performing the duties of maintaining and managing a building, including the duties of imposing and collecting management expenses, whether the authority to impose and collect management expenses of the superstore manager is lost within the scope of the authority of the superstore manager (affirmative)

[3] Where a management body acquires management expenses claims by performing the maintenance and management of a superstore before the establishment and report of the superstore manager, whether the management body loses the right to collect management expenses after the superstore manager newly acquired the right to impose and collect management expenses (negative in principle)

[2] In light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Distribution Industry Development Act to promote the establishment of commercial transaction order and consumer protection through the efficient and uniform maintenance and management of superstores, in cases where a large-scale store manager was duly established and completed procedures for filing a report with respect to a superstore, which is an aggregate building under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, while performing the duties of maintaining and managing the building, including the duties of imposing and collecting management fees, and thus, a management body has the authority to impose and collect management fees from that time to that of the large-scale store manager, the authority to impose and collect management fees has become invalid.

[3] There is no legal ground to interpret that the management body naturally transfers management expenses, claims for management expenses, and large-scale store managers acquired by the management body prior to the establishment and report of the superstore manager, barring special circumstances, the management expenses claims shall belong to the management body even after the superstore manager newly acquires the right to impose and collect management expenses, and the management body shall not lose the right to collect management expenses.

1. As to the third ground for appeal

On October 30, 2013, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) was established on October 30, 2013 with the consent of at least 2/3 of the shop occupants in the instant shopping district, a superstore operator, and received a confirmation from the head of Nowon-gu on December 30, 2013, and acknowledged that the Intervenor constituted a superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act and applied for the intervention of the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor was legally interested in the outcome of the instant lawsuit.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's measures are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or violation of the rules of evidence.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Article 12(1)3 of the Distribution Industry Development Act provides, “other business necessary to maintain and manage a superstore, etc.” (Article 12(1)3 of the same Act provides, “The Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings shall apply to a superstore, in which a superstore is sold in lots, with respect to matters relating to divided ownership among the business falling under each subparagraph of paragraph (1).” Here, “matters related to divided ownership” excluded from the business of a superstore manager should be construed as matters that conflict with the exercise of ownership by a store owner or are likely to infringe upon the ownership of a divided owner if a superstore manager permits a superstore manager to engage in the business of maintaining and managing a superstore. In light of such legal principles, the imposition and collection of management fees, which are expenses incurred in maintaining and managing a superstore from the divided owner or the merchants operating the superstore, are deemed to fall under the inherent authority of the superstore manager, rather than “matters related to divided ownership,” which is likely to conflict with the exercise of ownership by the divided owner, or to protect consumers’ convenience and management through the operation and use of the superstore.

Furthermore, in light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Distribution Industry Development Act to promote the establishment of commercial transaction order, consumer protection, etc. through the efficient and uniform maintenance and management of superstores, in cases where a large-scale store manager, who is an aggregate building under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, is legally established and has the authority to impose and collect management expenses due to the establishment of a large-scale store manager and completion of the procedures for report, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the authority to impose and collect management expenses, which has been held by the management body, is lost to the extent that it has the authority of the

However, there is no legal basis to interpret that the management body naturally transfers management expenses, claims, and large-scale store managers acquired by performing the management duties of the large-scale store before the establishment and report of the large-scale store manager, and barring special circumstances, the management expenses claims shall belong to the management body even after the large-scale store manager newly acquires the right to impose and collect management expenses, and the management body shall not lose the right to collect management

B. The record reveals the following. (1) The supplementary intervenor completed the procedure for reporting the establishment of a superstore manager after obtaining the consent of at least 2/3 of shop occupants of the instant commercial building, which is a superstore, the store of which has been sold in lots. (2) The Plaintiff has been performing the management of the instant commercial building, which is an aggregate building, before the supplementary intervenor was established. (3) The Plaintiff sought payment of unpaid management expenses incurred before March 2013, which was far earlier than the supplementary intervenor was established.

C. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the assistant intervenor newly has the authority to impose and collect management expenses as a superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act due to the establishment by obtaining the consent of not less than 2/3 of shop occupants of the instant commercial building and completing the procedure for reporting, etc., the assistant intervenor is deemed to lose the right to impose and collect management expenses, which the Plaintiff, the managing body, within the scope that falls under the authority of the assistant intervenor. The judgment below to the same purport is justifiable, and the allegation in the grounds of appeal

However, if the management expense claim asserted by the Plaintiff is within the legitimate scope acquired by the Plaintiff as a management body by legitimate performance of management duties before the establishment of the assistant intervenor, the management expense claim shall belong to the Plaintiff even after the assistant intervenor, who is a superstore manager, newly becomes entitled to impose and collect management expenses, and the Plaintiff shall not lose the right to collect management expenses under this part. Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim solely on the grounds that the assistant intervenor lost the Plaintiff’s right to impose and collect management expenses as a superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act, insofar as the assistant intervenor was entitled to impose and collect management expenses as a superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the authority of the management body and the superstore manager, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)