[2] The case holding that the above voting right is null and void because it violates Article 37 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, in case where the co-owners of the section of exclusive ownership in the building who did not have a majority of the share of exclusive ownership at the time of resolution of the provisional management body meeting did not designate voting right holders and did not exercise voting right according to the size of exclusive ownership

[2] The case holding that the above voting right is null and void because it violates Article 37 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, in case where the co-owners of the section for exclusive use in the building who did not have a majority of the share of the exclusive ownership at the time of the resolution of the provisional management body meeting and did not designate the voting right holder and did not exercise voting right in accordance with the

1. Article 37(2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “If the section for exclusive use belongs to two or more co-owners, the co-owners shall designate one person to exercise their voting rights at the management body meeting.” In light of the above provision, Article 28(1) of the Act provides that “The Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “if the section for exclusive use belongs to one or more co-owners, matters not provided for in this Act among the matters among sectional owners regarding the management or use of buildings, sites or accessory facilities may be determined by regulations,” it is a mandatory provision that the section for exclusive use should be calculated as one co-owner even if the section for exclusive use belongs to one or more co-owners, even if the section for exclusive use belongs to one or more co-owners, one of them shall be determined as the person to exercise voting rights at the management body meeting, and if the person who exercises voting rights at the same time does not exercise voting rights pursuant to Article 265 of the Act on the Management of Aggregate Buildings Act, the Act shall not exercise voting rights.”

2. According to the records, the building of this case consists of the section of exclusive ownership which is the object of 86 sectional ownership, and the total area of the section of exclusive ownership is 19,852.6 square meters. At the time the resolution of the first and second provisional management body meeting of this case was adopted, those who did not have a majority of the share of exclusive ownership as co-owners of the section of exclusive ownership within the building of this case did not designate a voting right holder and attend the meeting and exercise voting rights according to the area of each co-owner's share of exclusive ownership. Since the exercise of voting rights by the co-owners of the above section of exclusive ownership is null and void in violation of Article 37 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the area of each section of exclusive ownership is excluded from the total area of the section of exclusive ownership which is calculated as approved by the resolution of the first and second provisional management body meeting of this case, the resolution of the first and second provisional management body meeting of this case does not satisfy the majority of the voting rights under Article 38 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the Constitution, law, order or rule that affected the conclusion of the judgment, or the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 37 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act as otherwise alleged

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

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)