[1] The case where the Supreme Court can ex officio determine ex officio a mistake in application of the interpretation of the substantive law even where the requirement of "when a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents is rendered," which may be the grounds of appeal for small claims, is not satisfied

[2] Legislative purport of Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and validity of the management rules that require the special successor of the sectional ownership to succeed to the delinquent management expenses of the former sectional owner (= effective only for the management expenses for the common area)

[3] Whether a special successor to the sectional ownership of an aggregate building is still liable to pay delinquent management fees for the common areas of his/her former sectional owner even if the special successor to the sectional ownership has transferred the sectional ownership to a third party (affirmative)

[1] Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court concludes the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the relevant statutes on the grounds that it is a small amount of claims, it is likely that the legal safety of people's lives might be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the relevant statutes. Therefore, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be deemed as the ground of appeal for the small amount of claims, it may be determined ex officio as to errors

[2] Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that a claim held by a co-owner against another co-owner with respect to a common area shall be exercised against the special successor. This is because the common area of an aggregate building is provided for the benefit of all the co-owners, and thus, it shall be jointly maintained and managed, and the claim among the co-owners with respect to the expenses incurred in order to properly maintain and manage it is necessary to guarantee it in particular, so that a claim against the special successor of the former co-owner may be filed against the special successor regardless of whether the former co-owner wishes to succeed. Thus, the part concerning the management fee for the common area in the management agreement that allows the special successor of the former co-owner to succeed to the delinquent management

[3] The special successor under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings succeeds to the obligation to bear the expenses for the maintenance and management of the common use area of an aggregate building pursuant to the management rules. In light of the legislative purport of the above Act and the legal principles on the assumption of an obligation, where the sectional ownership is transferred in sequential order, each special successor shall be deemed to have taken over the obligations of the former sectional owner. Therefore, not only the final special successor who currently holds the sectional ownership but also the previous sectional owner shall bear the delinquent management expenses for the common use area regardless of whether the sectional ownership is owned.

[1] Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act / [2] Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [3] Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, Article 454 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1878 decided Aug. 20, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1571) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, 3604 decided Jun. 29, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1397) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da3628 decided Sep. 24, 2002 (Gong202Ha, 2538)

Plaintiff (Law Firm International, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 2005Na13667 Decided July 6, 2006

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court with regard to the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims at issue are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court concludes the case without making a decision as to the interpretation of the statutes on the grounds that it is a small amount of claims, it would be likely that the legal safety of people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision as to the interpretation of the statutes. In such special circumstances, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be viewed as the ground of appeal for the small amount of claims, even if it does not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," it shall be deemed that the decision may be made ex officio with regard to errors in the application of the interpretation of the substantive law in a way

2. In a case where a special successor to the sectional ownership of an aggregate building under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") has already transferred the sectional ownership to a third party before the conclusion of a fact-finding trial, there is no precedent of the Supreme Court as to whether the former sectional owner is liable to pay delinquent management expenses for the section for common use under Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act and the management rules, and there is a situation where the lower court's judgment is different. Thus, it is ex officio to determine the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Aggregate Buildings Act.

Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that a claim held by a co-owner against another co-owner with respect to the section for common use shall be exercised against the special successor. This is because the section for common use of an aggregate building is provided for the benefit of all co-owners, and shall be jointly maintained and managed, and the claim between co-owners with respect to the expenses incurred in order to promote the proper maintenance and management thereof shall be guaranteed in particular, so that a claim may be filed against the special successor of the former co-owner regardless of whether he/she wishes to succeed to the claim. Thus, the part concerning the management fee for common use in the management agreement that allows the special successor of the former co-owner to succeed to the delinquent management fee of the former co-owner is valid (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, 3604, Jun. 29, 2006). It is problematic about the interpretation of the parties' intent under the contract of acceptance of the obligation, and it is not clear whether the former co-owner has acquired the obligation.

The court below held that the special successor under Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings is limited to the person who is receiving benefits from the management of the common area as of the date of the closure of the pleadings at the fact-finding court, because the sectional ownership is already transferred to a third party, the interim successor who does not hold sectional ownership at the time of the conclusion of the pleadings at the fact-finding court shall be deemed to have succeeded to the current owner the management expenses liability for the common area in arrears due to the transfer of the sectional ownership right to the non-party on October 8, 2004 regarding the store of this case to the non-party as of the closure of the pleadings at the fact-finding court at this case.

However, the special successor under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings succeeds to the obligation to bear the expenses incurred in the maintenance and management of the common areas of an aggregate building in accordance with the management rules. In light of the legislative intent of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and the legal principles on the assumption of an obligation, it is reasonable to deem that each special successor has acquired the obligations of the former sectional owner when the sectional ownership is transferred in succession. Therefore, not only the final special successor who currently holds the sectional ownership but also the previous sectional owner should be deemed to bear the obligation to bear the delinquent management expenses of the previous sectional owners

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the claim for the payment of the previous delinquent management expenses concerning common areas solely on the ground that the defendant did not hold the sectional ownership as of the closing date of the argument of the court below. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation of the Act and the management rules, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of 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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)