The adequacy of the management body resolution amended by the articles of association to be a member of the management body of the aggregate building to which the Act on the Ownership and Management of Multi-Unit Residential Building applies.

In the case of an aggregate building to which the Act on the Ownership and Management of Multi-Unit Residential Building applies, members of a management body may be only sectional owners, and even if a sectional owner leases his/her section of exclusive ownership to another person and actually occupies and uses it, the lessee cannot be a member of the management body, so that the lessee, other than the sectional owners, can not be deemed to have a resolution of the management body that amended the articles of association so that the lessee may also become a member of the management body.

Articles 23(1) and 29(1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

South Korea:

1. On June 27, 1989, the resolution of amendment of the articles of incorporation of the defendant committee and the resolution of appointment of the non-party as the president of March 26, 1991 as the president of the committee is confirmed to be nonexistent. 2. The litigation cost is borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Each section of the aggregate building which can be used independently as an independent building can be classified into several sections of the building. This is to be the sectional ownership of the building. Article 23 (1) of the aggregate building law which was enacted by Act No. 3725 of Apr. 10, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings"). If the sectional ownership relation is established with respect to the building, sectional owners shall form a management body with the aim of carrying out the management of the building and its site and its accessory facilities. Accordingly, in the case of an aggregate building to which the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings applies, its members shall be the sectional owners. Even if the sectional owners rent the section of exclusive ownership to another person and actually occupy and use the section of exclusive ownership, they shall not become the members of the management body's sectional owners, and it shall be interpreted that the sectional owners' agreement on the building, site and its accessory facilities should be increased with the consent of all sectional owners and the provisions of Article 24 (1) through (2) of the Act which are not stipulated in the Act or its bylaws.

2. In this case, the non-party 1's association is composed of 1,267 members of the above 1's office divided into 63 members of the store and 155 members of the above 1' office. The 2's office divided into 1,267 members of the above 1' office and 2's representative members of the non-party 1's office is subject to the above 1's aggregate building act. The 9's office was composed of 1's sectional owners and 2' representative members of the above 1' office, and the 1's office was composed of 9's 6's 6's 7's 1's 6's 6's 6's 6's 6's 1's 7's 6's 1's 7's 6's 6's 1's 60' 7's 6' 1's 7's 1's 7's 's 's ''s 's 's 's 's 's 's ''

3. In light of the above laws and facts, the defendant committee shall be deemed to be the above management body. The members of the committee shall be only sectional owners. The amendment of the rules shall be made at the management body meeting above with the consent of not less than 3/4 of sectional owners and voting rights. The amendment of the articles of incorporation of the defendant committee on June 27, 1989 shall be made with the consent of not less than 3/4 of all sectional owners and voting rights. The above amendment of the articles of incorporation of the committee on June 27, 1989 shall be made to the effect that the tenant, other than some sectional owners, may not be a member of the management body. Thus, the resolution of the committee on June 197, 197 shall be adopted to the extent that the resolution of the committee on the defendant's ground that there is a serious defect that the resolution of the committee on the defendant's articles of incorporation cannot be seen to exist in violation of Article 23 (1) and the former part of Article 29 (1) of the above Act.

4. As to this, the defendant participated in each of the above resolutions, and paid management expenses without any objection to the execution of affairs managed by the defendant committee, and recognized the new articles of incorporation with the substance of the defendant committee. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is defense against the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, each of the above resolutions of the defendant committee is nonexistent in violation of Article 23 (1), the former part of Article 29 (1) and Article 24 (1) and (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which are mandatory provisions, and the articles of incorporation of the defendant committee. Thus, even if the defendant's claim of this case is asserted, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's claim of this case violates the principle of trust and good faith, and therefore the defendant's defense is groundless.

In addition, the defendant argues that the amendment of the articles of incorporation that the above peaceful apartment consists of most of the stores, and the management duties due to the lessee's refusal to pay the management expenses are in a state of paralysis, etc., including the lessee as a member of the defendant committee, would supplement the deficiencies of the provisions of the Aggregate Buildings Act through organizational expansion and reorganization. However, since Article 23 (1) and the former part of Article 29 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, etc. of the above Article 29 (1) of the same Act are mandatory provisions as mentioned above, even if the defendant asserts the above facts, it is not sufficient to correct the defect of the above resolution, and therefore the defendant's defense is without merit

5. Thus, each of the above resolutions of the defendant committee can be deemed non-existence of each of the above defects. Since the defendant is disputing this issue, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Guil-don (Presiding Judge)