[1] Whether a sectional owner of an aggregate building bears the obligation of management expenses incurred during the period in which he/she could not use or benefit from a building as an unlawful obstruction of use by the management body, such as a management body (negative)

[2] In a case where a lease contract is terminated as a corporation A, which had concluded an aggregate building management contract with a management body of an aggregate building and managed an aggregate building, has interfered with the establishment of a massage place by the lessee Byung who seeks to operate a massage place by leasing several stores to Eul who was a sectional owner, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Eul was liable to pay management fees to Eul, on the ground that the above obstruction act constitutes a tort that infringes upon Eul's rights, and that Eul's stores were in a situation where Eul's stores can be used for other purposes from the day following the termination of the lease contract

[1] Article 17 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Article 17 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, 3604 decided Jun. 29, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1397)

New Building Management Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na39692, 2007Na66325 decided February 13, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

If a sectional owner of a building could not use or benefit from the building due to an act interfering with the illegal use by the managing body, such as a management body of an aggregate building, the sectional owner does not bear the obligation of management expenses incurred during the period to the management body (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, 3604, Jun. 29, 2006).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, it is reasonable to view that the court below concluded a contract for management of the aggregate building of this case with the managing body of the new building which is the aggregate building of this case and concluded the contract for management of the building of this case with the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter only "the plaintiff") who managed the aggregate building of this case by leasing 20 stores under the ground of this case from the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter "the defendant") and operated the 20 stores under the ground of this case (hereinafter "the "the store of this case") constitutes a tort that infringes upon the rights of the defendant or the non-party, who is a sectional owner or lessee. The non-party notified the defendant on December 21, 2006 that the lease contract of this case was terminated, barring any special circumstances, and therefore, the defendant could use and profit from the store of this case for other purposes, and therefore, the defendant did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the compensation for damages or in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning concerning the process of enacting the provision on late payment rate of this case after compiling the adopted evidence, and judged that the provision on late payment rate of this case is valid as detailed provisions on the collection of management fees determined by the representative committee as prescribed by the management rules in accordance with the first management rules. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment, modification, or limitation of delegation of the management rules as to the remaining aggregate buildings which violated logical and empirical rules and exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or did not exhaust all necessary

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)