1. Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court concludes the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes, on the ground that it is a small amount case, it would be likely that the legal safety of people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes. In such special circumstances, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be viewed as the ground for appeal, even if it does not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da1878, Aug. 20, 2004; 2012Da488824, Mar. 26, 2015). In the instant case, the issue is whether the council of occupants’ representatives of multi-family housing has the authority to perform duties concerning the change of common areas and to claim expenses from sectional owners in accordance with Article 15(1) or 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) for a special resolution of sectional owners under Article 15(1) or 41(1).

However, since there is no Supreme Court precedent on this issue, and there is no lower court's judgment, it is judged about the interpretation and application of the above provision for the unification of statutory interpretation.

2.(a)

The work of changing the section for common use of an aggregate building shall vest in a management body which is duly formed by all sectional owners, and matters concerning the change thereof.