[2] The case holding that where a management body was organized after the sale of an aggregate building and its management was commenced by the method of continuously entrusting the sale company with the management thereof, a management body and a sectional owner's liability for the late payment of gas user fees is recognized

[2] The case holding that even if the management body was specifically organized through the inaugural general meeting of the management body after the sale of an aggregate building and entrusted the management of the building to the seller company, which has been in charge of managing the building for convenience, the right and responsibility for the management of the building should be ultimately reverted to the management body, and even if the management body did not apply for the change of the gas supply company for the overdue gas user obligation of the seller, it shall be deemed that a new gas user as a new gas user according to the urban gas supply regulations, is liable to pay the user fee due to the use of the building in the future by succeeding the rights and obligations related to the gas supply equipment as the gas user of the seller company as a new gas user, and that the management body is liable to pay the user fee in the proportion of each existing co-ownership, unless there are special circumstances.

A management body of an aggregate building under Article 23 (1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act is naturally established as an organization of sectional owners, the purpose of which is to carry out the business of managing buildings under divided ownership and their sites and ancillary facilities by making all sectional owners members of which is to carry out the business of managing the building under divided ownership and its appurtenant facilities, and as long as the management body has been actually organized and the autonomous management has commenced, the authority and responsibility for the management of the divided ownership building shall be ultimately vested in that management body, and if the management body cannot fully pay its obligations with its own property, unless otherwise stipulated by its regulations, the sectional owners shall be responsible for performing the obligations of the management body at the ratio of co-ownership determined in accordance with the ratio of the area of its exclusive ownership,

According to the records, the non-party company ("non-party company") constructed Hyundai Building on the 6th anniversary of Daejeon-dong 535's common use facilities (the 17th floor above, the 243 common use facilities and commercial buildings; hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") and sold it to each of the non-party company after the construction of the non-party company's own use facilities. The number of buyers of the building of this case began to occupy the 9-year general meeting of the management body after December 20, 1992, and the non-party company did not have the duty to manage the new common use facilities of the non-party 1 to the 9-year general use facilities of the non-party 1. The non-party company did not have the duty to manage the new common use facilities of the non-party 1 to the 9-year general use facilities of the non-party 1 to the 9-year general use facilities of the non-party 1 to the 9-year general use facilities of this case.

However, the court below rejected all of the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants, on the ground that the non-party company bears the obligation to pay the gas user fee on the ground that the non-party company is the non-party company, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff and the defendants or the management body of the building of this case concluded a gas supply contract. In such a case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal status of the management body in sectional ownership and the legal principles as to the relation of the use of urban gas in the remaining obligations of the management body, which concluded only the party who entered into a direct gas supply contract as the payment obligor, and by examining whether the management body, which is naturally formed by sectional owners, has succeeded to the rights and obligations of the non-party company that has managed the building of this case as a result of the non-party company's succession to the rights and obligations of the management body, and did not decide on the repayment ability of the management body and the scope of responsibilities of the sectional owners. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)