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. The defendant's judgment on the main safety defense is not a legitimate management body, and therefore, it cannot be deemed a legitimate representative of the management body of the commercial buildings, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and the main safety defense is deemed unlawful.
A management body under Article 23 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") is not established only through any organizational act, but also an organization formed by sectional ownership as a member of all sectional owners if there is a building established by sectional ownership. If it conforms to the purport of Article 23 (1) of the same Act as an organization formed by sectional owners, its function as a management body may be performed regardless of its existence form or title. Even if it is an organization composed of sectional owners and persons who are not sectional owners, it may concurrently belong to the management body composed solely of sectional owners.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 3 through 5 of August 23, 1996 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da27199, Aug. 23, 1996). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, ① an aggregate building consisting of five underground floors, twelve above ground floors, and two rooftops. As to the above right to manage the commercial building, the organization “A management body” comprised of some sectional owners and some of the sectional owners who gather and form a “A management body,” which is composed of a “A management body,” which is composed of some of the original sectional owners and the lessee’s share in relation to the right to manage the commercial building. However, under the above circumstances, A Management Body applied against A management body for a disposition of prohibition of interference with business under the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2005Kahap1564, Jan. 26, 2006.