2. Comprehensive management of stock companies:

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant shall not perform any act listed in the separate sheet No. 3 in the separate sheet against the plaintiffs in relation to the management work of the Hando Martic apartment by the plaintiffs against the offices listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list. When the defendant committed an act in violation of the above duty, he shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to one million won per each violation.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

This court's explanation is the same as the part of "1. Recognizing facts" of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim for omission

A. The plaintiffs' right to manage the building of this case

1) A management body of an aggregate building is naturally established as a management body of sectional owners, the purpose of which is to carry out projects relating to the management of sectional ownership buildings and their sites and ancillary facilities, consisting of all sectional owners, with the intention of which is to carry out projects related to the management of sectional ownership and their appurtenant facilities. 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 sectional ownership buildings shall be ultimately reverted to the management body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da19625, Aug. 29, 1997; 2002Da45284, Dec. 27, 2002). Meanwhile, Article 9-3(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that a seller of an aggregate building shall manage the building, its site and ancillary facilities with the care of a good manager until the management body commences pursuant to Article 23(1).

2) According to the facts acknowledged above in light of the above legal principles, since the management body meeting of the instant building was held, the Plaintiff Committee was organized, and the Plaintiff Committee was designated as a controlled entity, the management authority of the instant building is against the Plaintiffs, barring any special circumstances.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant service contract should be effective on the Plaintiff’s Committee pursuant to Articles 738 and 684(2) of the Civil Act, since the AB Urban Development was a business management for the occupants of the instant building, and the Defendant concluded the instant service contract with the Defendant, the effect of the instant service contract should be attributed to the Plaintiff’s Committee. (A) In order to establish a business management under the Civil Act, the work is a third party’s business, i.e., the intention to manage the affairs on behalf of the third party, i.e., the intention to assign the de facto interest in the management of the affairs on behalf of the third party, and furthermore, it is not clear that the process of the affairs is disadvantageous to or against the principal’s will (see, e.g

B) According to the statement in Eul evidence 2, Article 12 of the sales contract in the name of original city development (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract in this case") of the trustee and seller (hereinafter referred to as "A"), the buyer (hereinafter referred to as "A"), the contractor and the beneficiary (hereinafter referred to as "the contractor") can be formed with an organization necessary for the management of the building in this case (hereinafter referred to as "self-government management organization"), the buyer (hereinafter referred to as "B"), the contractor and the beneficiary (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract in this case"), the consignee and the beneficiary (hereinafter referred to as "the contractor") shall be the management entity, such as collection of management fees and the selection of service companies, for the management of the above object for three years from the date of approval for use (the date of approval for use at the time of approval for use) (the date of approval for use), the management entity's obligation to manage the building in preference to the management entity's obligation to manage the building in this case (hereinafter referred to as "the above sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (3) shall not apply mutatis mutandis.

As above, the plaintiffs asserted that the unit sale contract of this case, which is set as "management entity of the unit city development", is merely 20 out of 260 units of the unit sale contract of this case, and that the unit development of the unit of this case has no authority to manage the building of this case from the beginning of the unit sale contract of this case (the unit sale contract of this case No. 2 omitted the signature and seal of the purchaser, etc.). Despite the above points, the defendant did not submit additional data to recognize that the unit sale contract of this case was concluded between the purchaser and the purchaser of this case as the same content as the unit sale contract of this case (the plaintiff pointed out as above in Daegu District Court Decision 2015Kahap1011 decided against the defendant, but the defendant did not vindicate it). Accordingly, it is insufficient to recognize that the unit sale contract of this case was concluded with the same content as the unit sale contract of this case as the unit sale contract of this case. Accordingly, the unit development contract of this case between the defendant and the tenant of this case is an act for management of the tenant of this case.

Meanwhile, even if the sales contract was entered into with the same content as the instant sales contract, according to the instant sales contract, development of Egywon City becomes the managing body of the instant building for three years from the date of approval for use. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the date of approval for use of the instant building on July 5, 201, taking into account the written evidence No. 10, which was concluded on September 22, 2014, which was three years thereafter, constitutes an act without any duty and management.

C) However, even if E.B. Urban Development entered into the instant service contract with the Defendant as a business management, there is no ground to view that the Plaintiff’s commission organized thereafter ought to succeed to the said service contract, and rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s commission refused ratification of the administrative management act by selecting the Plaintiff Company as a controlled entity through open competitive bidding. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) In addition, the Defendant asserts that, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract on the instant building, there was a written resolution on the appointment of an administrator through the conclusion of the instant sales contract, since the occupant entered into the sales contract as a custodian for the development of the instant building, and that the Defendant was entitled to manage the instant building since it was entrusted with the management of the instant building from the development of Ei city as a custodian.

As seen earlier, as long as it is difficult to recognize that the sales contract was concluded with respect to the building of this case, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the purchaser (user) made a written resolution to appoint the E-won urban development as a manager through the conclusion of the sales contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the prior Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit without any need to further examine it.

3) In addition, according to the instant sales contract, the Defendant asserts that the instant Asian trust was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s commission participated in the Asian trust meeting without voting rights and exercised voting rights, even though it was merely the trust company that received only the name.

In light of the above legal principles and facts, a sectional owner who exercises voting rights at a management unit meeting refers to a person who acquires sectional ownership (the person who is registered as a sectional owner on the register of co-owners) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Ma515, Dec. 16, 2005). In full view of the written evidence No. 11, a unit No. 74, which was not sold among the buildings of this case, was registered under the name of an Asian trust, and the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of an Asian trust, and the Asian trust can be recognized as exercising voting rights after attending the meeting of the management body of the building of this case on May 13, 2015. According to the above legal principles and facts, the Asian trust is entitled to exercise voting rights at the management body meeting of this case as a sectional owner of the building of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that the transferor and the transferee of the sale contract of this case are not liable for the comprehensive succession between the original city development agreement and the transferor.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in the evidence No. 2 of this case, it can be acknowledged that, in the pledge of succession of rights and obligations attached to the contract of this case, Ei city development (hereinafter the transferee) takes over the rights and obligations of each provision of the original contract entered into between the transferor (A) and the transferor (B) in the transfer and acquisition of the real estate of the electric indication contracted with the Asian trust (A), and then the civil and criminal issues arising from the subsequent transfer and acquisition shall belong to Ei city development (A) and Ei city development (A), Ii City Construction Co., Ltd. (A) is not responsible for Ei city development (A). This is nothing more than a pledge of individual transfer and acquisition of the real estate from the existing buyer, but it is not sufficient to recognize that Ei city development was based on the above pledge of succession of rights and obligations, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Ei city development was based on the specific number of houses among the buildings of this case. Thus, there is no reason to recognize otherwise.

5) Lastly, the Defendant did not have the right to select controlled entities in collusion with Asian Trust and Hanra Construction Co., Ltd., but did not have the right to select controlled entities, and the Defendant also asserted that this is invalid.

As seen earlier, the fact that the management body meeting of the instant building was held, was organized by the Plaintiff Committee, and the Plaintiff Committee was selected as a controlled entity. The Plaintiff Committee has the authority to select a controlled entity pursuant to Article 21 subparag. 4 (see Evidence A (see Evidence A 10) of the Management Rules) of the Management Rules, and each evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff Committee was selected as a controlled entity in collusion with the Asian Trust, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. The cited part

Although the management authority of the building of this case was against the plaintiffs, the defendant committed acts that interfere with the management authority of the plaintiffs by doing such acts as shown in the attached Form 2 list, and in the future, such acts may be repeated. Therefore, the plaintiffs need to seek prior prohibition against the obstruction act against the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty not to engage in the act in the attached Form 2 list that infringes on the management authority of the plaintiffs.

D. The dismissed part

Of the places for seeking access prohibition, etc. in attached Table 3 No. 4, the above-mentioned parking lots, underground parking lots, the first floor street, underground street, electric resting facilities, garden facilities, and landscaping facilities are not a space specially prepared for building management, but a place where the general public is allowed to visit or use the building of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s access to the above place alone cannot be readily concluded that the management affairs of the Plaintiffs are interfered with, and it is excluded from the place for ordering access prohibition.

In the [Attachment 3 Claim List No. 5] prohibiting the Defendant from attaching all kinds and contents to the Defendant is likely to excessively restrict the Defendant’s freedom of expression and freedom of action, so the prohibition of action is ordered only when it is likely to interfere with the management of the Plaintiffs, such as the [Attachment 2 List No. 5].

Attached 3 Claim List Nos. 6 is an infringement on the plaintiffs' personal rights of each employee belonging to the plaintiffs, not an act that interferes with management affairs. Thus, the plaintiffs, not an individual, are not allowed to file a claim against the defendant.

3. Determination as to a claim for indirect compulsory performance

This court's reasoning is as follows: "3. Judgment on the Claim for Indirect Compulsory Performance" is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, it is citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. As the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Lee Young-jin

Judges Nam-nam