[1] The validity of the provision that stipulates that the special successor of the former sectional owner shall succeed to the delinquent management fees for the portion of the common use of the former sectional owner (effective)

[2] In a case where the issue is whether the new owner of a commercial store is liable to succeed to and pay the delinquent management expenses for the section for common use, the case holding that the court below erred in the determination contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, on the ground that there was no evidence that the management rules for the commercial use provided that the new owner shall succeed to the delinquent management expenses for the section for common use, but there was no evidence that the regulations were enacted in accordance with the laws on the ownership and management of the aggregate building

[1] Article 18 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, Article 12 of the Distribution Industry Development Act, Article 6 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Distribution Industry Development Act / [2] Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, Article 18 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, Article 12 of the Distribution Industry Development Act, Article 6 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Distribution Industry Development Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83427 decided Oct. 13, 2011 (Gong2011Ha, 2293)

1. The term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term.

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 2008Na13132, 13149 Decided January 9, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83427 Decided October 13, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83427 Decided the management of a superstore based on the Distribution Industry Development Act, it is reasonable to view that the status of a superstore manager, who has the status of management authority, is equivalent to a co-owner who is entitled to exercise a claim under Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”). Since the management rules of a superstore manager, which provide for the special successor of the sectional owner, to succeed to the delinquent management fees for the common portion of the former sectional owner, are valid in accordance with Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the special successor of the store, expressed that he succeeds to the obligation to pay delinquent management fees for the former sectional owner pursuant to the management rules that provide that the special successor of the former sectional owner shall succeed to the delinquent management fees

2. However, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for delinquent management fees for common areas, on the ground that there was no evidence that the instant management rules, which provide that the new owner shall succeed to the delinquent management fees for common areas of the previous sectional owner, have been enacted, and that the Distribution Industry Development Act does not have the same provision as Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the Defendant, who is the new owner of the instant store, is not liable to succeed to the delinquent management fees for common areas of the previous sectional owner, and that the Defendant, who is not the occupant, has no authority

However, the above decision of the court below is in violation of the opinion expressed in the above decision of the court below. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment of the Supreme Court as stipulated in Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)