2013Da43628 Management Expenses

Slish Industry Development Corporation

A

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na52884 Decided April 24, 2013

December 29, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court dismissed the instant claim seeking the payment of overdue management expenses against the Defendant, a sectional owner, who was the management company of the instant commercial building for the following reasons.

On November 28, 2012, and February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained ratification of the status of the management company by a resolution at the meeting of the management body of the commercial building of this case. On January 18, 2013, it can be recognized that the management consignment agreement, including D duly appointed a manager at the meeting of the management body on November 28, 2012 and management fees, was concluded, including the authority to collect management expenses. However, if there is no ground to recognize that the management company can conduct litigation concerning the collection of management expenses, the management company cannot be deemed to have the authority to claim management expenses. However, the management company cannot be deemed to have the authority to claim management expenses unless the regulations of the management body of the commercial building of this case were submitted, and there is no ground to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff, a management company, cannot claim management expenses under its own judicial name.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the " Aggregate Buildings Act") does not exist any management body regulations, etc. in force for the collection of management expenses, pursuant to the Aggregate Buildings Act.

At least, a sectional owner who is obligated to pay management fees for common areas may file a claim against the sectional owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da90740, Dec. 26, 2012). Moreover, the manager of an aggregate building is entitled to entrust the management of an aggregate building to another person on behalf of the management body in relation to the implementation of the management body. As such, the management body entrusted with the management of an aggregate building by the manager has the authority to conduct the management of the aggregate building, including the imposition and collection of management fees, during the period of entrustment stipulated in the above consignment management contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218528, Jan. 28, 2016). Meanwhile, the management body entrusted with the management of an aggregate building under the name of the management body, which is one of the parties to the exclusive ownership of the aggregate building, is recognized to have been entrusted with the management of the aggregate building under the name of the management body, which is one of the parties to the management body.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff can be seen as having entered into a management consignment agreement, including the authority to collect management expenses, with the manager duly appointed at the management body meeting of the commercial building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff, who is an entrusted management company, may claim at least management expenses for the common area against the defendant, who is the sectional owner of the

Nevertheless, solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court dismissed all of the instant claims. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the right to claim management expenses of the entrusted management company. (However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the management body of the instant commercial building appears to have been established only for the sectional owners of the commercial building from the second to the seventh to the seventh to the ground, excluding the apartment portion from the 8th to the 15th to the 15th to the ground among the main complex buildings consisting of the commercial building and apartment. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok