1. Article 46 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18297 of Feb. 28, 2004), Chapter 5 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 6943 of Jul. 25, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the “former Housing Act”) and Chapter 5 of the Enforcement Decree thereof provide that matters concerning the management of collective housing shall apply to collective housing constructed after obtaining approval for a housing construction project plan under Article 16 of the former Housing Act. The provisions of Articles 59 through 62 of the former Enforcement Decree on the repair of defects of a building apply to collective housing constructed for sale after obtaining a building permit under Article 8 of the Building Act. Meanwhile, Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Aggregate Buildings Act”) provides that if a sectional ownership relationship is established with respect to a building, the sectional owner shall be composed of all the collective housing for the purpose of the management of the building and its appurtenant facilities, and the provisions of Article 6 of the Housing Act concerning the management method and management of aggregate.

In full view of the above provisions, the provisions of the former Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof concerning the establishment, etc. of a council of occupants' representatives apply only to apartment houses for which approval for a housing construction project plan is obtained pursuant to Article 16 of the former Housing Act. Thus, the above provisions do not apply to apartment houses constructed by obtaining a building permit pursuant to Article 8 of the Building Act, and only the provisions on the management body of the Act on

2. Examining the above legal principles and records, the court below affirmed the decision of the court of first instance that held that the validity as a resolution of the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings cannot be recognized as just because the building of this case is not an apartment house constructed with the approval of the housing construction project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act, but an apartment house constructed with only a building permit under Article 8 of the Building Act, barring any special circumstances. Furthermore, the provisions on the management body under the former Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Residents' Representatives' Representatives' Representatives' Council cannot be applied, unless there are special circumstances. Furthermore, a large number of persons who agreed to the resolution of the change of the management body of this case by the re-appellant is merely a tenant, and the number of persons who agreed to do so cannot be recognized as a resolution of the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings because it did not reach 4/5 of the sectional owners and voting rights in the building of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, reason for reappeal, contrary to the grounds for reappeal.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)