[2] Whether a resolution to appoint an administrator is possible by a written resolution under Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (affirmative), and whether it is necessary to convene and hold a management body meeting in making such written resolution (negative)

[3] In a case where a sales contract for an aggregate building includes the contents that the owner is an aggregate building manager, the case holding that there is a written resolution substituted for a resolution of the management body meeting's appointment as an manager

1. The management body under Article 23 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") is not an organization established only through any organizational act, but an organization established with all sectional owners as a matter of course in the event that there is a sectional ownership relationship. Thus, if the sale of an aggregate building is commenced and occupancy is required, a management body is established with all sectional owners, including sectional owners in the unsold section for exclusive use at that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da45496, Nov. 10, 2005, etc.). Meanwhile, Article 41 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that "where there is a written agreement with at least 4/5 of both sectional owners and voting rights to the matters determined to be resolved at the management body meeting, a resolution by the management body meeting shall be deemed to be adopted at the management body meeting, and it is not necessary to convene a resolution to appoint a management body meeting under Article 24 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and it is also possible to convene a resolution to appoint a management body under Article 2419 (30.7).

The court below acknowledged, based on its adopted evidence, that each owner of the instant aggregate building, including the Defendant (appointed party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the remaining designated parties, entered into a sales contract under the sales contract stating that “after the date of entry into the apartment building, the non-party and three other owners of the instant aggregate buildings shall be the manager of the instant aggregate building.” The non-party and the non-party and the non-party are the manager of the instant aggregate building. Accordingly, the non-party and the non-party were to manage the instant aggregate building from January 2003 to March 31, 2003, and the non-party were to establish the Plaintiff Company and thereafter be responsible for managing the instant aggregate building. The court below determined that the non-party and the non-party owner of the instant aggregate building, including the non-party owner of the instant aggregate building, have legitimate authority to manage the instant aggregate building as a manager of the instant aggregate building, by taking into account the period required for the sale in lots and the circumstances of the sale in lots. Thus, the court below determined that the non-party and the non-party owner of the instant aggregate building can be deemed reasonable.

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is reasonable to view that the owner of the instant aggregate building and the buyer of the instant unit building agreed in writing on the appointment of the manager after the establishment of the management body under the premise of acquiring the sectional ownership of the buyers, and that they agreed explicitly to accept such individual written agreement among the buyers. Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a written resolution substituted for the resolution of the management body meeting, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant was legally appointed as a new manager at the council of occupants' representatives held on October 13, 2003 and that the defendant had the right to manage the condominium building of this case. The defendant's assertion that the defendant had the right to manage the condominium building of this case is insufficient to prove the above alleged facts, and instead, it recognized the facts that the defendant could not be deemed to have been appointed as a legitimate manager at the council of occupants

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts, incomplete hearing, or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)