1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reason why this court's explanation is the same as the part of "1. Recognizing facts" of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim for omission

A. The plaintiffs' right to manage the building of this case is established as a matter of course as a sectional owners' organization whose purpose is to manage the building of this case and its site and its ancillary facilities, even though there is no organizational act. Since the management body was actually organized and its autonomous management was commenced, the right and responsibility for the management of the building of this case shall be ultimately reverted to that management body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da19625, Aug. 29, 197; 2002Da45284, Dec. 27, 2002). Meanwhile, Article 9-3(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that the seller shall manage the building of this case and its appurtenant facilities with the care of a good manager until the management body commences under Article 23(1). Since the management body of the aggregate building of this case is established, the management body of this case shall terminate when it becomes possible to commence the management body of the aggregate building (the duty of the seller).

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the Defendant asserts that the effect of the instant service contract should be attributed to the Plaintiff Committee in accordance with Articles 738 and 684(2) of the Civil Act, as the Defendant concluded the instant service contract with the Defendant as a business management for the occupants of the instant building, and thus, the administrative management under the Civil Act should be established.