관리인지위부존재 등
1. The plaintiffs' primary claims against Defendant BK are dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs are to Defendant BJ management body.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 12, 24, 25, 26, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8:
The plaintiffs are divided owners of BJ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) which is an aggregate building in Seoul Jung-gu, BL, BM, and BN ground.
Defendant BJ management body (hereinafter “DefendantJ management body”) is a management body comprised of all sectional owners of the instant building pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”). Defendant BK is a person elected as a manager of Defendant BJ management body on May 13, 2017.
B. On September 4, 2013, Nonparty 2O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BO”) reported as the superstore manager of the instant shopping mall on September 4, 2013 pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Distribution Industry Development Act.
Defendant BK was appointed as the representative director of BO on June 16, 2017.
C. Nonparty 2P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BP”) entered into a management service agreement with Defendant management body around 2009 and thereafter manages the instant building.
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. Defendant BK’s assertion 1) At the time of being elected as the administrator of Defendant B’s management body on May 13, 2017, Defendant BK is limited to B Q (hereinafter “B Q”) that is one of the managing directors and BP’s subsidiaries.
As a director of the management body, a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs under Article 8(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings cannot be a member of the management body. 6. A party who entered into a contract with the management body in relation to the affairs of the management body, such as management entrustment agreement, or its officer and employee did not meet the requirements for the candidate for the manager. Therefore, Defendant BK cannot be deemed to have been effectively elected as the manager of the management body. 2) Even if not, Defendant BK cannot be said to have been elected.