beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an organization organized by the sectional owners and lessees of a building A (the 90 households, commercial buildings, 75 households, and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant building”), which is an aggregate building constructed on the land outside and two parcels of the Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The Plaintiff is performing the duties of maintaining and managing the instant building.
The Defendant was a sectional owner of 202, 203, and 208 of the instant building.
B. On February 26, 2007, the Defendant purchased Nos. 202 and 203 of the instant building from Nonparty D and operated a mutually named restaurant of “E” (hereinafter “E restaurant”), and around October 23, 2007, the Defendant purchased No. 208 of the instant building from Nonparty F and operated the G restaurant of “G” (hereinafter “G restaurant”).
C. The statutes on the maintenance and management of the building of this case are as stated in the attached Form “related Acts and subordinate statutes”.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 2, evidence 18, evidence 24 to 27-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The defendant does not have the ability to file the lawsuit of this case, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.
B. The management body under Article 23 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act is not an organization established only through an organizational act, but if there is a building which constitutes a sectional ownership relationship, it is naturally an organization formed by all sectional owners. If it is an organization composed of sectional owners and meets the purport of Article 23 (1) of the same Act, it can perform its role as a management body regardless of its existence form and name. Even if it is an organization composed of sectional owners and persons who are not sectional owners, it can concurrently hold the character of the management body composed solely of sectional owners.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da27199 delivered on August 23, 1996). C.
Modern, Gap evidence 1 to 2, and 5.