All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the following reasons, the lower court rejected the counterclaim claim filed by the Counterclaim Defendant seeking the payment of parking fees imposed on each of the instant automobiles owned by the Counterclaim Defendant.

In other words, ① Lessee is not a management body under Article 23(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”), but is only a management body with the purpose of implementing a project for managing the section for partial common use under Article 23(2) of the same Act.

② However, as a matter of principle, the management authority of the instant parking lot is in the integrated management body. In order for the Lessee to exercise the management authority of the instant parking lot, the integrated cost should have been expressly delegated through the resolution of the management body meeting, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Lessee was delegated such authority.

③ Therefore, since it cannot be deemed that the Lessee has the right to manage and operate the instant parking lot, the instant parking lot management guidelines and resolution related to the parking lot established on such premise are null and void. Based on this, the parking fee imposed on each of the instant vehicles is unlawful.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record and relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Aggregate Buildings Act or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

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