logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018. 8. 30. 선고 2018두44531 판결
[입주자대표회의구성신고수리취소처분취소][미간행]
Main Issues

In a case where the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 22254 on July 6, 2010, and the separate provision to restrict the representation of the representatives of each building exists under the individual multi-family housing management rules, the same content as Article 50(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, whether the provision to restrict the employment of representatives of each building is valid even after the enforcement of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing

[Reference Provisions]

Article 43(7)2 (see current Article 14(7) and (8) of the former Housing Act (Amended by Act No. 12115, Dec. 24, 2013); Article 44 (see current Article 18 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act); Article 50(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24307, Jan. 9, 2013); Article 2(2) of the Addenda (see current Article 13(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act);

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 2015Da39357 Decided September 8, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1513)

Plaintiff-Appellant

Samsung M&M Apartment's Council

Defendant-Appellee

The head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office (Law Firm Maritime Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant)

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu83814 decided April 19, 2018

Text

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by Nonparty 1 (resident registration number and address omitted).

Reasons

Judgment ex officio is made.

Article 43(7)2 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12115, Dec. 24, 2013) newly established Article 50(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22254, Jul. 6, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) which provides for the composition, etc. of a council of occupants' representatives pursuant to delegation of Article 43(7)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22254, Jan. 9, 2013) provides that “the term of office of a representative of each Dong shall be two years, but he/she may be reappointed only once.” Meanwhile, Article 2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12115, Jul. 6, 2010) provides that the said newly established provision shall apply from the representative of each Dong elected for the first time after the enforcement of the former Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2507 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, Article 19(1) of the Management Rules of the apartment complex of this case (Enforcement Date of November 6, 2006) from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008 (No. 6), from January 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 (No. 7), and from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 (No. 10) were elected as representatives of the instant Samsung C&M apartment of this case on three occasions. However, at the time of Nonparty 1 being elected as representatives by Dong 6 and 7, Article 19(1) of the Management Rules of the instant apartment of this case (No. 2006), stating that the term of office of the representative of each Dong shall be two years, and that the representative may not be reappointed only once, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s election management rules were deleted and implemented pursuant to the proviso to Article 17(1) of this case.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the election of Nonparty 1 by Nonparty 1 as the representative by Dong 11 is null and void in violation of the provision on the restriction of appointment, and the election of Nonparty 1 as the representative required for the qualification of the representative by Dong is null and void, and there is no other data to recognize the representative authority of Nonparty 1’s Plaintiff. Thus, the instant appeal filed by Nonparty 1 is unlawful as it

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by Nonparty 1. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)

arrow