1. As to the appearance of a sectional owner, a quasi-section owner, or a sectional owner, who has the appearance of a sectional owner or a quasi-section owner, is liable for the payment of management expenses, the court below held that the registration of transfer of ownership completed in the future of the plaintiffs who purchased each unit for the stores of the 7,8th and that the sale contract in this case was null and void, and furthermore, since all the sale contract in this case was legally rescinded, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to bear the obligation to pay management expenses

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of violating the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or of misapprehending

2. As to whether the possessor bears the obligation to pay the management expenses

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiffs were liable to pay management fees to the Plaintiffs, on the ground that it was impossible for the Plaintiffs to exclusively use and benefit from the object of sale that they purchased without excluding the buyers of the adjacent Gu units, barring special circumstances.

B. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

1) The instant management rules, which the Defendant’s duty to pay the management fees, are the persons holding the sectional ownership of the O’s sectional owner on the copy of the register, defined as “occupants” as the persons possessing the O’s exclusive ownership (Article 5 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2), and the sectional owners bear the burden of bearing the expenses, etc. to be incurred for the joint interest related to the maintenance of buildings and business management (Article 6 subparag. 8).