[1] In calculating the number of written resolution of the sectional owners as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, if one person owns several sections of an aggregate building, it shall be deemed as one sectional owner (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the issue was whether the management rules of a management body Gap's aggregate building met the requirements for a written resolution under Article 41 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and are legally established, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which should have determined whether the management body rules were valid by calculating the number of persons holding several divided stores as one sectional owners when deliberating on the requirements for a written resolution on the establishment of management body rules, and should have determined whether the management body rules were valid by examining the requirements for a written resolution

[1] The main text of Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "if one person owns several partitioned buildings within the aggregate building by agreement in writing, at least 4/5 of the sectional owners and at least 4/5 of voting rights, the resolution shall be deemed to have been adopted at the managing body's meeting." In light of the fact that the requirements for the written resolution are prescribed as the number of sectional owners and the number of voting rights, and that the legislative intent of maintaining and managing the aggregate building fairly and smoothly by considering the joint ownership relationship and the property aspect with respect to the aggregate building in personal aspect, and that the language and text of the above provision are stipulated as the "sectional owner", it shall be deemed as one sectional owner in calculating the number of written resolution of the sectional owners as stipulated in the above provision.

[2] In a case where the issue was whether the management rules of a management body Gap's aggregate building met the requirements for written resolution under Article 41 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and are legally established, the case reversing the judgment of the court below that the management body rules have no power of representation on the part of the elected representative, where the management body rules should have judged that the management body rules have no power of representation on the ground that the management body rules have no power of representation on the ground that the management body rules have no power of representation on the ground that the resolution of the establishment of management body rules was duly established in light of the requirements for written resolution on the establishment

[1] Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Articles 24(2), 38(1), and 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

New Zealand department stores

Defendant (Attorney Lee Chang-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na9418 decided July 17, 2009

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, should have been established by a written resolution of not less than 4/5 of sectional owners and voting rights under Article 41(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act. Among this, the management body rules of this case were null and void since they failed to satisfy the requirements for written resolution of sectional owners. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff is unlawful on the part of the defendant's principal safety defense, on the premise that the number of sectional owners should be calculated according to the number of sectional owners in the case where one person owns several sectional owners in the aggregate building, and on August 2002, the court below rejected the defendant's legitimate resolution of the management body's establishment of the management body's resolution of 40,832 among the sectional owners of the department department of this case (80.21%) 45,064,799 square meters of voting rights and the non-party's resolution of this case's 10,587 square meters of voting rights by the management body of this case.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The main text of Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "if one person has agreed in writing at least 4/5 of sectional owners and at least 4/5 of voting rights with respect to matters determined to be resolved by the management body meeting in accordance with this Act or regulations, it shall be deemed that the management body meeting adopts a resolution in writing." The legislative purpose of the written resolution is to maintain and manage the aggregate building fairly and smoothly in consideration of the relationship of common life and property and the relationship of common ownership in terms of its property, and the language and text of the above provision provide that the number of written resolution in calculating the number of sectional owners' resolution in accordance with the above provision is a sectional owner's ownership in the aggregate building, if one person owns several sections within the aggregate building, it shall be deemed as one sectional owner.

Therefore, in examining the requirements for the above written resolution on the establishment of the management agreement of this case, the court below should have determined that the representative of the plaintiff should be elected at the management body meeting in accordance with the provisions of the management body agreement of this case as a majority of sectional owners and voting rights, although the representative of the management body of this case should be elected at the management body meeting in accordance with the provisions of Articles 24(2) and 38(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and therefore, the defendant's safety defense was rejected for the above reasons. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for written resolution of the sectional owners, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)