(영문) 대구고등법원 2012.10.17.선고 2011나8004 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs are members (representative of each Dong) of the council of occupants' representatives of the defendant.

of the corporation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is the council of occupants' representatives comprised of the representatives of the Dong-gu I-dong 00 Dong 000- Ho-dong 1-H apartment (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case"), a multi-family housing of 498 households, which had been approved on October 5, 1993 and passed a pre-use inspection on September 13, 1995. The plaintiffs were elected as the representatives of each apartment of this case around November 1, 2010 and were dismissed by the occupants' voting on June 9, 201.

B. Among the management rules of the instant apartment building that entered into force on November 1, 2010 regarding the election and dismissal of the representative of the Dong, the main contents of the election and dismissal of the representative of each Dong constituting the council of occupants' representatives are as follows:

(1) The first election district: (1) the representative of each Dong shall be elected separately from the following elections pursuant to Article 50(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act; (2) the first election district: (1) the number of members of the relevant constituency shall be three (1: 2: 3 (1: 1: 2: 3) the election district: 4. The election district of this case shall be dismissed by two (1: 1: 2) the members of the council of occupants' representatives; and (3) the members of the council of occupants' representatives shall be dismissed by two (1: 1: 2) the members of the council of occupants' representatives who have been removed from the election district of this case; and (1) the members of the council of occupants' representatives shall be removed by five (2) the members of the council of occupants' representatives who have been removed from the election district of this case with the consent of a majority of the members of the council of occupants' representatives who have been removed from their offices; and (2) the members of the council of occupants' representatives shall be removed by five (1:

According to Article 20 (1) 1 and 4 of the Rules on the Grounds for Removal of Residents, when it violates the Housing Act and the Acts and subordinate statutes related to the management of multi-family housing (No. 1) (1) and Article 23 (2) of the Notice on the Standards for Installation of Joint Broadcasting-Raising Facilities based on the Housing Act shall separately install cable tracks and equipment and publicly announced office equipment. (2) The present decision of the present council of occupants violated the above public notice, and it constitutes a violation of the Building Act and the Housing Act. (2) The removal of the present apartment by intention or by gross negligence constitutes a violation of the Housing Act and the Housing Act. (1) The removal of the present council of occupants from 200 to 100 to 200 to 100 to 200 to 100 to 200 to 200 to 10 to 200 to 3rd residents' voting facilities already concluded with the consent of the present council of occupants.

(3) After the resolution of dismissal of representatives from each Dong to the plaintiffs and J, the occupants of the apartment of this case divided into the position of supporting the plaintiffs, etc. and the head of the management office, and the position of supporting the "PTV Voluntary Measure Committee" (hereinafter referred to as the "Non-Subrogation"), which includes the defendant special representative, etc. who led the removal of this case, and the "Non-Subrogation Measure Committee" (hereinafter referred to as the "Non-Subrogation"), and they did not elect representatives from each next building, including the lawsuit of this case.

D. The apartment of this case, which completed the inspection of use on September 13, 1995, has been in force as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. ① The apartment of this case, which was established on the instant apartment complex, shall be equipped with the facilities for cable broadcast service (hereinafter referred to as the “cable cable broadcasting facilities”) under Article 98 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365, May 30, 192). The apartment of this case, which was established on the instant apartment complex, was installed at the time of the alteration of the area of the instant apartment facility (hereinafter referred to as the “cable cable broadcasting facilities”). The apartment of this case, which was established on the instant apartment complex, was installed at the time of the alteration of the area of the instant cable broadcasting facilities, with the “cable cable broadcasting facilities” (hereinafter referred to as the “cable cable broadcasting facilities”). Article 199(2)(2) of the former Rules, which shall not be jointly installed with the “cable cable broadcasting facilities” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation facilities”).

They agreed to recover in their own condition).

(3) At around November 208, L. 200 newly installed a cable broadcasting facility (the digital cable broadcasting facility of this case hereinafter referred to as "the digital cable broadcasting facility of this case") under the name of 3rd or less of the existing facilities using the facilities of this case in order to provide digital cable broadcasting services to the apartment of this case, and at least 10 percent of the existing facilities of 1st or less of 3rd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 6th of 2008, the term of the contract for the new cable broadcasting facility of this case should be 1st of 3rd of 2nd of 4th of 200, and the consent of 3rd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 4th of 209 to 3rd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 2nd of 3th of 2011.

B. The Agreement was concluded.

(6) On April 201, the Plaintiffs, etc. demanded restoration of the instant public office’s facilities and removal of the instant digital cable broadcasting facilities on the ground of the expiration of the period of validity of the instant cable broadcasting contract, but failed to comply with the request. On May 1, 201, the existing public office line was removed at around 0:0, and the supply of electricity to the Plaintiff and the digital cable broadcasting facilities was prevented for each of the following reasons: (a) around 1st of the instant apartment units, which were used for the instant cable broadcasting services; (b) around 0th of May, 201, the existing public office line was removed; and (c) on every 7th of the instant apartment units installed in the distribution machine installed at each of the instant apartment units, the number of TV broadcasting units connected to each of the instant units to each of the instant digital cable broadcasting units at 0th of each of the instant units, which had been provided to the occupants; and (d) each of the aforementioned digital cable broadcasting units and equipment continued to be operated by the occupants for each of the instant digital cable broadcasting units and equipment.

03: At around 00, the apartment security guards opened the door of underground facilities room and had L Cable Broadcasting installed a separate power supply system on cable broadcasting facilities. However, the cable broadcasting services continued to be obstructed on the wind that the key of the above equipment boxes installed on every four floors by the plaintiffs, etc. and the head of the management office could not connect the distribution system because they did not have a power, and around 15:0 on the same day, some occupants and employees of L Cable Broadcasting opened the locks of the above equipment to the cable broadcasting lines by force and connect them to the cable broadcasting lines at the distribution machine and make it possible for them to view digital cable broadcasting (the plaintiffs, etc. were not resumed on the wind of removing the official lines on the day without an alternative to the Aro-day cable broadcasting transmission line).

E. Circumstances after the act of blocking cable broadcasting in this case

(1) Afterwards, the plaintiffs, etc. and the head of the management office file a complaint against the occupants and employees of LVA who forced to open locks for the aforementioned devices, on suspicion of property damage, and on the other hand, on LV, the digital cable broadcasting facilities of this case require their removal as illegal facilities.

(2) At present, among the occupants of the apartment of this case, households wishing to view only terrestrial broadcasting ( approximately 180 households among 498 households) are using a satellite broadcasting service provided through the digital cable broadcasting facilities of this case, which are newly installed by Msatellite Broadcasting to view through the removal of the existing facilities of the digital public office. A household ( approximately 160 households) wishing to view a satellite broadcasting is using a satellite broadcasting service provided by Msatellite Broadcasting through the facilities of the digital public office of this case. A household ( approximately 160 households) wishing to view a CATV broadcasting is using the cable broadcasting service provided through the digital cable broadcasting facilities of this case, which are re- connected by Msatellite Broadcasting.

[Ground of Recognition] In the absence of dispute, part of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 9.11, 14 through 19. Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 38 (including each number) are written. Results of fact inquiry to the Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission of the Party, part of the witness P's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Whether the defendant is eligible to be a party

Article 36 subparag. 4, 7, and 8 of the defendant's management rules claim that the council of occupants' representatives, who is not an election commission, is not a juristic person, because the council of occupants' representatives, who is not a council of occupants' representatives, shall not be qualified for the defendant, on the ground that the duties related to the verification of the qualification and status of representatives of each building are prescribed as the duties of "H Election Commission", and therefore, the council of occupants' representatives of multi-family housing is an association that is not a juristic person, the representatives of each buildings elected in proportion to the number of households of each building. Thus, seeking nullification of the resolution of the representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representative disputes over the validity of the resolution. Thus, the council of occupants' representatives is the actual subject of dispute over the validity of the resolution, and thus the defendant's assertion in this part

B. Whether there exists a benefit of confirmation

The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs are not representatives elected in units of each unit of the apartment of this case, which are the elected method under Article 50 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, but representatives elected in units of each unit of each unit of the apartment of this case, and they cannot be viewed as a legitimate representative of each Dong. In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not dispute the invalidity of the dismissal resolution of this case, which is a final means of dispute resolution, and only sought confirmation of the status of the representative of each Dong,

First, with respect to the plaintiffs' assertion that they are elected by each unit of door and are not in the status of the representative of each building, the representative of each apartment building of this case shall be elected by each unit of door, and accordingly, the plaintiffs shall also be elected by each unit of door. However, Article 50 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act shall be comprised of not less than four members pursuant to Article 43 (7) 2 of the Act, and the council of occupants' representatives shall be elected by the constituency stipulated by the rules on collective housing management under Article 44 (2) of the Act in proportion to the number of households of each building. In this case, the constituency may be divided into not less than two units or divided by passage or floor. "the passage" of the proviso to the above Article 4 (1) shall include not only the horizontal meaning of each floor, but also the passage of vertical meaning of each unit of apartment, and therefore the method of selecting each unit of apartment shall not violate this part of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.

Then, as to the assertion that there is no interest in confirmation to seek confirmation of the status of the representative of each Dong without dispute over the invalidity of the resolution of dismissal of this case, the plaintiffs, as the representative of the apartment building of this case, are identified as the defendant's member, is a claim based on the premise that the resolution of dismissal of this case is null and void, and the dispute of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants is ultimately resolved. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The assertion by the parties on the merits;

A. (1) According to Article 20(2) of the instant management rules, the procedural defect in the process of the instant dismissal order must be done in such a way as to request the progress of the dismissal procedure on the apartment line of the apartment house "not less than 1/10 occupants, etc. of the relevant constituency". The instant dismissal order is significant defect since non-Subrogation members consisting of some occupants visit each household without classifying the relevant constituency and obtain written consent.

(2) The non-existence of reasons for removal

The apartment of this case is a multi-family housing that has undergone a pre-use inspection on around 1995 and is not subject to the notification of the current joint receiving facilities, and it is not required to install cable broadcasting lines separately.

D. Even if some of the occupants of domestic affairs were unable to view cable broadcasting due to the plaintiffs' act of blocking cable broadcasting in this case and the construction of the digital public office facilities in this case, the apartment in this case still exists a facility where the household who wants to provide cable broadcasting services can view cable broadcasting through a separate contract. The Building Act and the Housing Act only stipulate the duty to install broadcasting facilities and do not stipulate the specific status of the use of the facilities. Thus, the plaintiffs do not violate the relevant laws and regulations.

In addition, the digital cable broadcasting facilities of this case, which were installed by LV, are merely illegal facilities subject to removal, not public facilities, and cannot be destroyed, damaged, or damaged as a temporary suspension of power supply. Thus, the plaintiffs did not have any act such as the destruction of public goods as announced by the apartment board.

On the other hand, the "no special resolution of the management body meeting due to the change in common areas" or "no special resolution of the management body meeting of this case" is stated at the time of the resolution of dismissal of this case. Thus, the resolution of dismissal of this case is null and void, and the plaintiffs are still members of the defendant as the representative of each Dong.

B. The defendant (1) has no procedural defect

According to the instant management rules, the removal order for the representative of each Dong under the instant management rules is merely a case where the intention of dismissal is presented by the “o tenth or more occupants, etc. of the relevant constituency” and does not stipulate that the actual consent should be obtained. Thus, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, non-Subrogation members were visited in a lump sum and received a written consent, and thus, there is no procedural defect. (2) The existence of the grounds for removal (a) the existence of the grounds for dismissal (b) is in violation of the relevant statutes.

The plaintiffs, through the act of blocking cable broadcasting in this case and the construction of the digital public office facilities in this case, no longer allow the occupants of the apartment of this case to view the cable broadcasting. The digital public office facilities of this case constitute "in the case of replacing the television common antenna facilities installed pursuant to the previous rules and the rules on the standards for the installation of joint reception facilities of broadcasting," and "in accordance with Article 2 (2) of the Addenda to the Rules, the facilities of the cable broadcasting station should be installed separately as provided in Article 23 (2) of the Notification in order to "in the case of replacing the television common antenna facilities installed pursuant to the previous regulations to replace them with the joint reception facilities of broadcasting." The plaintiffs demand the removal of the digital cable broadcasting facilities of this case, which were installed in the existing public office without installing them, is in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Enforcement Decree of the former Building Act, to guarantee the right to choose broadcasting or the right to listen to cable broadcasting, and thus constitutes grounds for dismissal under Article 20 (1) 1 of the Management Rules.

Even if not, the plaintiffs' act is conducted without the consent of about 62.2% of all households of the apartment of this case and without the consent of about 62.2% of all households of this case, so the act constitutes grounds for dismissal in violation of related Acts and subordinate statutes. The plaintiffs also constitute grounds for dismissal in violation of related Acts and subordinate statutes.

B. The digital cable broadcasting facilities of this case are installed with the consent of the management entity for the purpose of viewing the composite cable broadcasting by the occupants. The plaintiffs prevented the supply of electricity to the apartment of this case and damaged its utility by blocking the connection of the composite cable broadcasting at the distribution period, and thereby damaging and damaging the public facilities. This constitutes grounds for dismissal under Article 20(1)4 of the Management Rules.

4. Determination

(a) Whether there are procedural defects in the process of removal from office;

The plaintiffs asserted that the removal of this case is in violation of the management rules because non-Subrogation members, who are not residents of the relevant constituency, visit each household by the consent form. As seen earlier, Article 20 (2) of the management rules of this case provides that "at least 1/10 of the relevant constituency, occupants, etc. may request the progress of the procedure for removal of representatives of each Dong on the line of apartment houses." The resolution of dismissal of this case was progress with the consent of at least 1/10 of the occupants of each constituency. Article 20 (2) of the management rules provides that the procedure for removal of representatives of each Dong was initiated at the request of "at least 1/10 occupants, etc. of the relevant constituency", and the main body of each household's request is not "at least 1/10 occupants, etc. of the relevant constituency" but "at least 1/10 occupants, etc. of the relevant constituency, etc. of the relevant constituency," and there is no other evidence of the plaintiffs' opinions about the removal of the representatives of this case.

B. Whether there exists a ground for dismissal (1) in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' failure to receive the composite cable broadcasting service through the act of blocking cable broadcasting in this case and the construction of the digital public office facilities in this case constitutes "when they violated the provisions of Article 20 (1) 1 of the Management Rules of this case by infringing upon the right to broadcast or the right to view cable broadcasting by the occupants of apartment houses guaranteed by the relevant laws and regulations."

살피건대, 위 인정 사실과 인용증거들, 갑 제20 내지 39호증의 각 일부 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 별지 관계 법령의 기재와 같이, 이 사건 아파트를 건축할 당시 ( 1995. 9. 13. 사용검사 ) 의 구 건축법 시행령 제98조는 " 건축물에는. .. .. . 종합유선방송 전송선로설비를 갖추어야 한다. " 고, 제99조 제2항은 " 공동주택으로 쓰이는 건축물에는 종합유선방송의 시청이 가능한 배관 및 선로 설비를 갖춘 공동시청안테나를 설치하여야 한다. " 고, 구 공청 시설규칙 제18조 제2항은 " 공동시청안테나시설을 종합유선방송 전송선로 설비와 공동으로 사용할 수 있는 경우에는 그 공동으로 사용할 수 있는 구간에 대하여 종합유선방송 전송선로설비를 따로 설치하지 아니할 수 있다. " 고 각각 규정하고 있고, 이 사건 유선방송 차단행위 등을 할 당시 ( 2011. 5. 1. 경 ) 의 구 건축법 시행령 제87조 제4항은 " 건축물에는 방송수신에 지장이 없도록 공동시청 안테나, 유선방송 수신시설, 위성방송 수신설비. .. .. . 또는 방송 공동수신설비를 설치할 수 있다. 다만. .. .. . 공동주택에는 방송 공동 수신설비를 설치하여야 한다. " 고, 「 방송 공동 수신설비의 설치기준에 관한 규칙 」 제2조 제1항 제1호는 " 방송 공동수신설비란 지상파 텔레비전 방송, 위성방송. .. .. . 및 종합유선방송을 공동으로 수신하기 위하여 설치하는 수신안테나 · 선로 · 관로 · 증폭기 및 분배기 등과 그 부속설비를 말한다. " 고, 그 부칙 제2조 제1항은 " 종전의 규정에 따라 설치된 텔레비전 공동 시청안테 나시설은 이 규칙에 따라 설치된 방송 공동 수신 설비로 본다. " 고, 제2항은 " 종전의 규정에 따라 설치된 텔레비전 공동시청안테나 시설을 이 규칙에 따른 방송 공동 수신설비로 교체할 경우에는 방송 간에 서로 신호의 간섭이 없도록 하여야 한다. " 고, 현행 공동수신설비 고시 제23조 제2항은 " 종합유선방송 구내전송선로 설비와 방송 공동수신 안테나시설은 장치함까지 따로 설치하여야 한다. 다만, 공동주택인 경우에는 세대단자함까지 따로 설치하여야 하고, 세대 내는 성형 배선으로 배선하여야 한다. " 고 각각 규정하고 있는바 [ 이 사건 아파트가 건축될 당시의 구 건축법 시행령부터 현행 건축법 시행령에 이르기까지 이 사건 아파트와 같은 공동주택에는 공청시설 외에 종합유선방송 수신설비를 의무적으로 갖추도록 규정하고 있고 ( 다만, 공청 시설과 공동으로 사용할 수 있는 구 간에는 따로 설치하지 아니할 수 있는지에 관한 사항만 개정되었다 ), 그에 따른 구 공청 시설규칙 등 관련 규칙이나 고시들 모두 공동주택에서의 종합유선방송 수신설비의 설치기준에 관하여 구체적으로 규정하고 있다. 위와 같은 규정들의 취지는 이 사건 아파트와 같은 공동주택에 종합유선방송의 시청이 가능한 설비를 갖추도록 강제하여 그 입주자들의 방송선택권 내지 종합유선방송 시청권을 보장하려는 데 있는 것으로 보이는 점. ② 이 사건 아파트의 선관위가 원고들에 대한 법령 위반의 해임사유로 공고한 내용은 " 현행 공동 수신 설비 고시 제23조 제2항에는 케이블 선로 및 설비를 공시청설비와 별도로 설치하도록 규정하고 있는데, 원고들은 기존의 케이블 ( 현 L ) 에 대한 단선으로 위 고시를 위반하였고, 입주자들에게 M만을 보게 하는 것은 건축법 및 주택법을 위 반하는 것에 해당한다. " 는 것으로, 앞서 본 이 사건 유선방송계약과 위성방송계약의 각 체결 경위, 이 사건 유선방송 차단행위 및 이 사건 디지털 공청시설 공사의 진행 경과 , 이를 둘러싼 원고들 등과 비대위 사이의 분쟁 경위를 지켜보아 온 이 사건 아파트의 입주자들은, 위 공고문의 ' 기존의 I케이블 ( 현 L ) 에 대한 단선 ' 이나 ' 입주자들에게 M만을 보게 하는 것 ' 이 이 사건 유선방송 차단행위 및 이 사건 디지털 공청 시설 공사를 통하여 종합유선방송을 시청할 수 없게 하는 행위임을 쉽게 알 수 있었을 것으로 보이고 , 당시 같이 공고된 원고들의 소명서 또한 위와 같은 유선방송 차단행위 및 디지털 공청시설 공사의 정당성에 관한 내용이 포함되어 있으므로, 이 사건 유선방송 차단행위 및 이 사건 디지털 공청시설 공사로 인하여 종합유선방송을 시청할 수 없게 만든 행위가 해임사유로 적시되었다고 보이는 점, ③ 원고들 등의 이 사건 유선방송 차단행위 및 이 사건 디지털 공청시설 공사의 시행으로 인하여 2011. 5. 1. 00 : 00경부터 같은 날 15 : 00까지 이 사건 아파트의 입주자들은 종합유선방송을 전혀 시청할 수 없었고 ( 아날로그 유선방송은 그 이후에도 계속 시청이 불가능하게 되었다 ), 그 시청이 가능하게 된 것도 일부 입주자들과 L유선방송의 직원들이 원고들 등이 봉쇄하여 놓은 지하 설비실과 장치함들의 자물쇠를 강제로 개방함으로써 가능하게 된 것일 뿐, 원고들 등과 관리사무소장은 오히려 위 자물쇠를 개방한 사람들을 재물손괴죄로 고소하고 L유선방송에 대하여 계속하여 이 사건 디지털 유선방송설비의 철거를 요구하고 있는 점, ④ 원고들 등이 위와 같이 무리하게 이 사건 유선방송 차단행위 등에 나선 경위는, 당초 원고들 등은 M위성방송과 사이의 2011. 3. 29. 자 이 사건 위성방송계약 ( M위성방송의 표준 계약서에 기초하여 체결된 것으로 보인다 ) 제4조 제2항에 ". .. .. .. SMATV설비 설치 이전에 이미 제공 중인 타 방송서비스 등의 시청 · 접속에 지장이 없도록 해당 설비를 설치하고 관리하여야 한다. " 고 정하고 있는 바와 같이 기존의 종합유선방송서비스에 지장을 주지 않는 범위에서 이 사건 아파트에 위성방송설비를 설치하려고 하였다가, 2011. 4 .

It seems that there was an additional oral agreement between the plaintiffs, etc. and the persons in charge of M-satellite Broadcasting that the composite cable broadcasting in the apartment in this case should not be viewed in the apartment in this case, and 5.62% of the occupants agreed to the construction contract for the facilities of the digital public office in this case, even though they agreed to the construction contract for the facilities of the digital public office in this case, most of them agreed to the dismissal of the plaintiffs, and up to now,

④ In light of the fact that approximately 180 households and 160 households, other than the 160 households of the instant cable broadcasting, were under their own view and continued to use the instant cable broadcasting facilities without sufficiently informing the occupants of the fact that they could no longer receive any services for the cable broadcasting, the Plaintiffs were under their respective circumstances, and the construction of the instant cable broadcasting facilities and its digital cable broadcasting facilities was conducted within the scope of not impeding the existing cable broadcasting services, as stated in Article 4(2) of the instant cable broadcasting contract. The Plaintiffs were to be aware of the fact that the instant cable broadcasting facilities were destroyed by the Act and subordinate statutes and subordinate statutes to prevent the occupants from being able to view the existing cable broadcasting facilities and their existing cable broadcasting facilities from being destroyed by the Act and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da17688, Apr. 1, 2006).

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the resolution of dismissal of the plaintiffs in this case is valid not only because the grounds for dismissal exist but also because the procedural defect in the process of dismissal is not sufficient. Thus, all of the plaintiff's arguments premised on the invalidity of the resolution of dismissal in this case cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case are dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge shall have jurisdiction over the dismissal of judges.

Judges Kim Tae-tae

Judge Lee Jin-soo

Note tin

1 ) 아파트 돔의 옥상에 꿈돔안테나를 세워 TV 전파를 수신해 그것을 케이블로 건물 내의 각 세대에 분배하는 꿈돔

depository facilities means receiving facilities.

2) An agreement entered into with LVA to enter into with only an individual household who wishes to add a above-mentioned broadcast, as an agreement entered into with LVA.

of this section.

3) It is a specialized company specializing in the installation of MN.

1 ) 각 동의 여러 공동 출입구 중 하나의 공동 출입구를 사욤하는 세대들의 집합을 의미한다 .