[1] Whether the superstore manager has the right to impose and collect management expenses from the merchants operating stores by leasing a store to the sectional owners of a superstore or to them (affirmative)

[2] 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)

[1] While the Distribution Industry Development Act grants a general authority for the maintenance and management of a superstore to a superstore manager established by a large-scale store manager who is not a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings which is established as a whole by a sectional owner, the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides for the general authority for the maintenance and management of a large-scale store, the management of a large-scale store shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, such as regulations established by a management body which is an organization holding sectional ownership or a resolution of a management body meeting. Therefore, considering the legislative purport of the Distribution Industry Development Act and the relationship with the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, “matters related to the separate ownership” excluded from the management of a large-scale store manager from the management of a large-scale store, it is reasonable to interpret that the use of the large-scale store owner’s ownership conflict with that of the large-scale store manager or the large-scale store manager’s ownership is likely to conflict with or undermine the interests of consumers.

[2] Considering the fact that the status corresponding to the co-owner who can exercise the claim under Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings to the council of occupants' representatives of multi-family housing (hereinafter "the Act") is recognized, the status equivalent to the co-owner who is entitled to exercise the claim under Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings shall be recognized for a superstore manager who has the status of the managing body in relation to the management of a superstore based on the Distribution Industry Development Act. The management rules for a superstore manager, which provide for the special successor of the former sectional owner to succeed to the delinquent management fees for the portion of the common use of the former sectional owner, are valid

[1] Articles 1, 1-2, and 23 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 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. The term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term.

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2007Na3320 Decided October 18, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s right to impose and collect management expenses

Article 12 of the Distribution Industry Development Act provides for the business conducted by a person who has registered the opening of a superstore (hereinafter referred to as the "superstore operator"), to maintain the order of commercial transactions, to maintain the safety of consumers and residents in their neighborhood areas, and to conduct other business necessary for the prompt management and management of superstores (paragraph (1)); to the superstore operator where there is a person who directly manages not less than 1/2 of the area of a superstore in the case of a superstore where the superstore is sold in lots, the person who directly manages the superstore (paragraph (2) 1); to the case where there is no person who directly manages not less than 1/2 of the area of a superstore, the corporation under the Civil Act or the Commercial Act established with the consent of not less than 2/3 of the occupant occupants [paragraph (2) 2 (a)], cooperative or business cooperative under the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act [Article 12 (c) of the same Act], self-management organization [where such person has to conduct the business of a superstore under the provisions of subparagraph 2 (a) or (b) of the above Act within six months, and where such person has no authority exists.

As above, while the Distribution Industry Development Act grants a general authority on the maintenance and management of a superstore to a superstore manager established by a large-scale store manager who is not a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings that is established automatically by all sectional owners, the Distribution Industry Development Act regulates the interests between the sectional owners and the occupant-merchants in the management of a superstore by requiring the management body to follow the provisions of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, such as regulations established by the management body which is the organization

Therefore, considering the legislative purport of the Distribution Industry Development Act and the relationship with the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the term "matters related to the separate ownership" excluded from the duties of the superstore manager shall be interpreted as those related to the operation of the superstore, the establishment of commercial order through the use of the common facilities, the protection of consumers, and the enhancement of benefits for the maintenance and management of the superstore, which are matters necessary for the maintenance and management of the superstore, if permitted to the superstore operator or the operator of the superstore. In light of the above legal principles, the manager of the superstore imposes and collects management fees, which are expenses for the maintenance and management of the superstore from the owners of the superstore or the merchants operating the superstore by leasing it from them, shall be deemed to fall under the affairs related to the maintenance and management of the superstore.

The court below is just in holding that the plaintiff has the authority to impose and collect management expenses for each of the stores in this case owned by the defendant as a superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of business of superstore manager

Meanwhile, the court below asserted that the defendant recognized management expenses as management expenses, in addition to expenses necessary for proper maintenance and repair of the commercial building of this case. However, according to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, the management expenses item imposed on the defendant constitutes expenses used for the part of the necessity of uniform maintenance and management for the common interests of all the sectional owners of the commercial building of this case or all the occupants of the commercial building of this case, and thus, the defendant is liable to pay the same part of the judgment below to the defendant, who is the sectional owner of each of the stores of this case. It is just, and there is no error of law

2. Regarding succession to delinquent management expenses of the former sectional owner

Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings stipulates that a co-owner may exercise his/her right against another co-owner as to the common part of the aggregate building. This is because the common part of the aggregate building is provided for the benefit of all co-owners, and it should be jointly maintained and managed. Since it is necessary to guarantee in particular the claim between the co-owners about expenses incurred in order to properly maintain and manage the common part of the aggregate building, so that a claim can be made to the special successor of the co-owner regardless of whether he/she wishes to succeed to it. Even though the "management body" under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings or the "management Body, etc." (hereinafter referred to as the "Management Body, etc.") is not provided for in Article 18 of the same Act, each co-owner can manage the common part in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Act on the common part, and the co-owner who has paid expenses in excess of his/her share can claim against the other co-owners (see Article 266 of the Civil Act).

Considering the above legal principle as well as the status equivalent to the co-owner who can exercise the claim under Article 18 of the Multi-Family Building Act to the council of occupants' representatives of multi-family housing, it is reasonable to view that the status equivalent to the co-owner who can exercise the claim under Article 18 of the Multi-Family Building Act is recognized for a superstore manager who has the status of the managing body in relation to the management of a superstore based on the Distribution Industry Development Act, and the management rules for a superstore manager, which provide for the special successor of the former sectional owner to succeed to the delinquent management fees for the common portion of the former sectional owner, are valid under

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant succeeded to the obligation of the former sectional owner to pay delinquent delinquent management fees based on the management rules that provide that the special successor succeeds to delinquent management fees for the former sectional owner based on Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and that the former sectional owner ordered the defendant to pay delinquent management fees, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provisions of Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act and the scope of business of the superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)