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. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The Defendant asserts that, as an aggregate building owned by sectional owners, the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) falls under the section for common use in the warehouse A and 30.058 square meters (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) connected in sequence 1, 2, 3, and 1 of the separate sheet, the apartment building owned by sectional owners falls under the section for common use. Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without being delegated with the authority to file a lawsuit concerning the instant warehouse from the sectional owners, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
(b) Pursuant to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, if the sectional ownership of a building is established, a management body consisting of all sectional owners and the purpose of which is to carry out the business of managing the building and its site and its accessory facilities (Article 23(1) of the same Act); the manager appointed by the resolution of the management body meeting may carry out the act of preserving, managing and changing the section for common use; and the manager appointed by the resolution of the management body meeting may carry out judicial or extrajudicial acts representing the management body in connection with
(Article 25 (1) of the same Act). On the other hand, in the aggregate building, where a third party illegally occupies the site or annex facilities of the building belonging to the section for common use or the section for common use or the section for common use or the section for common use or the section for common use or the section for common use, the legal relation that the third party unlawfully occupies is not a legal relation that belongs to the section for common use or the section for common use, but is based on the co-ownership right of the section for common use or the section for common use, so such legal relation is not a legal relation that belongs to the section for common use, and thus,
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da17774 delivered on June 24, 2003.