(b) The case holding that the opening of reading rooms in an aggregate building, all of which are used as an office, constitutes acts stipulated in Articles 43 (1) and 5 (1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act;

(b) The case holding that the opening of reading rooms in the building in which all sections of sectional ownership are used as offices, acts harmful to the preservation of the building as provided in Articles 43(1) and 5(1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, and other acts detrimental to the common interests of sectional owners regarding the management and use of the building;

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. As to the first ground for appeal:

Article 43 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "if the sectional owner conducts an act under Article 5 (1) (the sectional owner shall not do any act detrimental to the preservation of a building or any other act contrary to the common interest of the sectional owner with respect to the management and use of a building), or if such act is likely to be conducted, the manager or the sectional owner designated by the resolution of the management body meeting may demand that the sectional owner suspend, remove the result of, or take measures necessary for the prevention of such act for the common interest," Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "where the possessor conducts an act under Article 5 (1) which is harmful to the preservation of a building, or conducts an act under Article 5 (4), the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same Article provide that "if the manager of the aggregate building may institute a lawsuit against the representative of the management body, as well as that of the sectional owner who has been designated by the resolution of the management body meeting, the manager may institute the lawsuit separately from the above resolution of the management body meeting."

In the same purport, the court below determined that the management body meeting of the building of this case, which is an aggregate building, designated the plaintiff to file the lawsuit of this case against the defendants in the position of the sectional owner, and confirmed the resolution, and rejected the defendants' defense to the effect that the plaintiff is not a party to the lawsuit of this case is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the party standing, such as the theory of lawsuit, and unlike the above opinion, the legal entity under Article 43 of the above Act is only the management body and the sectional owner is not an individual, so even if the sectional owner is designated by the resolution of the management body meeting, he shall have the right to perform the lawsuit as the representative of

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in constructing the building of this case, the plaintiff obtained a building permit by using all the 1 to 14 stories above ground except the neighborhood living facilities of the 1st, 2, 3, and 4th underground floor and the machinery rooms of the 14th floor as the office, and as to selling the building in lots, the above building was advertised as an exclusive building and sold to the 1 to the 2nd unit as well as the other buyers. Of the above 60 percent completion of the sale in lots or rent, the above 10th floor area is used as the office with the exception of the 10th floor area sold to the above defendants. The above 10th floor area is constructed as 718.27 square meters above so that the total area of the 10th floor area of the above 10th floor and the 120th floor area of the above 1st floor installed as the office, and the 1nd floor area of the above 1 to 3rd unit installed as well as the 1 to 4th unit of the above building.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 43(1) and Article 5(1) of the above Act or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 43(1) of the above Act.

3. Ultimately, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)