[1] Legal relations between the apartment management company and the council of occupants' representatives, and the contents of the duty of care to be taken when the tenant becomes aware that the apartment management company can choose again due to the change in the method of calculating electric charges

[2] The case holding that where an apartment management company fails to report the change of the method of calculating electricity charges to the council of occupants' representatives and thus automatically renew the existing power supply contract unfavorable to the occupants under the same conditions as before, the apartment management company is liable for damages due to the violation of the duty of care in the apartment management company

[1] The legal relationship between the council of occupants' representatives and the apartment management company is the same as the delegation relationship under the Civil Act, and therefore, the apartment management company has to perform management duties with the care of a good manager in order to manage the apartment in a safe and efficient manner and to protect the rights and interests of the occupants. If the apartment management company becomes aware that there is room for the occupants to choose again in the apartment management, due to the change in the method of calculating electricity charges for the portion of common facilities, although the council of occupants' representatives becomes responsible for the determination of the method of calculating electricity charges, the council of occupants' representatives has the duty to take measures to ensure that the council of occupants' representatives can make a reasonable decision on the change in the method of calculating electricity charges for the portion of common facilities

[2] The case holding that the apartment management company, which entered into an apartment management contract with the council of occupants' representatives, did not report it to the council of occupants' representatives even though it was notified by the Korea Electric Power Corporation that it may enter into an alteration contract on the method of calculating electricity rates by the choice of consumers among two methods, and where the existing contract was automatically renewed under the same conditions as that of the existing electricity supply contract after it was left alone until the maturity of the existing contract and was automatically renewed to the apartment occupants

[1] Articles 680 and 681 of the Civil Act, Article 38 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 3 of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing / [2] Articles 390 and 681 of the Civil Act, Article 38 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 3 of the Decree on the Management of Multi

The council of occupants' representatives of banks and public apartments

Slim Housing Management Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na17320 delivered on April 12, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since the legal relationship between the council of occupants' representatives and the apartment management company is the same as the delegation relationship under the Civil Act, the apartment management company should manage the apartment in a safe and efficient manner and protect the rights and interests of the occupants, and if the apartment management company becomes aware that there is room for the occupants to choose again, due to the change in the method of calculating the electricity fee for the portion of the common facilities because of the apartment management company's managing the apartment, the final decision on the selection of the method of calculating the electricity fee has a duty to take measures so that the council of occupants' representatives can make a reasonable decision on the change in the method of calculating the electricity fee for the portion of the common facilities by examining what method is favorable for the occupants and notifying the council of occupants of the contents thereof.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, was liable to the Plaintiff for the alteration of the usage rate for each of the instant apartment units on the 15th floor and the 190-story apartment units for the alteration of the apartment units’ common electricity usage charges or the 9th apartment units’ common electricity usage charges for each of the above alteration of the apartment units’ common electricity usage charges and the 9th apartment units’ common electricity usage charges for each of the above alteration of the apartment units’ common electricity usage charges or the 190-story apartment units’ common electricity usage charges for each of the above alteration of the apartment units’ common electricity usage charges or the 9th apartment units’ common electricity usage charges for each of the alteration of the apartment units’ common electricity usage charges or the 9th common electricity usage charges for each of the above alteration of the apartment units’ common electricity usage charges, and that the alteration of the unit of the apartment units’ common electricity usage charges or the 9th common electricity usage charges for each of the alteration of the apartment units’ common electricity usage charges or common electricity usage charges.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the duty of good faith of apartment management company, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

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 on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)