Whether the management expenses in arrears owed by the pre-user of the apartment is succeeded to the special successor according to the determination of the management rules of the apartment (=Succession to the common area only)

[Majority Opinion] In light of Article 28(3) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, which provides that the management rules shall not infringe upon any right of a person other than a sectional owner, even though the special successor can exercise the right of a person who succeeds to the status of an occupant on the whole of the delinquent management expenses, the management rules shall not be effective unless the special successor explicitly and explicitly approves the management rules, and it is reasonable to interpret that the special provisions of Article 42(1) of the Multi-unit Residential Building Act and Article 9(4) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing are valid for the successor to the management expenses of a multi-unit residential building, and that the management rules shall not be effective for the successor to the management expenses of the multi-unit residential building regardless of the intention of the successor to the management expenses of the multi-unit residential building, and that the successor to the management expenses of the multi-unit residential building should also be jointly paid the management expenses of the multi-unit residential building regardless of the intention of the successor to the management expenses of the multi-unit residential building.

[Separate Opinion] The apartment management rules are municipal ordinances and rules, which include not only the sectional owners but also the special successor, in accordance with Article 42(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act and Article 9(4) of the Decree on the Management of Aggregate Buildings. Since an aggregate building is a building jointly owned and used by many people, it is permitted to impose certain restrictions on the rights of the sectional owners or the special successor, through the rules, unless it violates the Constitution or other Acts and subordinate statutes, so long as it does not violate the provisions of the Constitution or other Acts and subordinate statutes. "A sectional owners" under the provisions of Article 28(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act which prevents a person other than the sectional owners from impairing the rights of the former sectional owners from establishing the rules as well as the sectional owners after establishing the regulations, it is not against the above regulations that restrict the rights of the special successor of the former sectional owners. Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act does not violate the above regulations. Where it is deemed that the special successor is succeeded to the part concerning the common part among the delinquent management fees of the former occupants, which is not related to the former sectional owners.

[Dissenting Opinion] Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "the special successor of a sectional owner shall be liable for the management body's obligations according to the ratio of shares if the management body is unable to fully pay its obligations with its own property," and Article 27 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that the special successor of a sectional owner shall be liable for the management body's obligations arising before the succession. In light of the purport that Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "the special successor of a sectional owner shall be liable for the management body's obligations arising before the succession," it is interpreted that the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings shall not be individually liable for the unpaid management expenses of the sectional owner before the succession, regardless of the section for exclusive use, and it shall not be interpreted that the special successor is responsible for the unpaid management expenses of the management body, but it shall be interpreted that the special successor has selected a system that imposes the liability for the installment on all the sectional owners.

Articles 18, 27, 28, and 42(1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Article 9(4) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing

Plaintiff

The council of occupants' representatives of extreme apartment

Seoul District Court Decision 200Na52393 delivered on December 21, 2000

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

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below, on December 11, 1998, the plaintiff paid the price at the 30th day of the same month after the successful bid for the apartment of this case for the apartment of the defendant management. The non-party, the former owner of the apartment of this case, included both the concept of the user fee and public charge in the management fee from January to December of the same year (in this case, the term "management fee" under Article 3 (1) 3 of the Decree shall be used to mean all the expenses in the name of the management fee actually imposed on each tenant), and the late payment charge shall be included in the management fee for the apartment of this case. Article 9 (1) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing provides that "the tenant, etc. of multi-family housing shall set the management rules on the management or use of multi-family housing", and Article 9 (3) 3 of the Decree on the Management Rules on Multi-Family Housing shall also provide that "the successor's status and successor of the management rules shall also be effective."

A. As to the interpretation of the instant management rules

The provisions of Article 13(1) of the Management Rules that may cause property damage to the successor by allowing the successor to succeed to the delinquent management expenses, regardless of the intention of the successor, his good faith, or bad faith, and by allowing the successor to succeed to the delinquent management expenses of the former tenant, shall not be deemed to be impossible unless the delinquent management expenses are succeeded to. In addition, the provisions of Article 13(1) of the Management Rules that are not appropriate as a means to achieve the purpose of efficient management of the apartment house through the smooth collection of the management expenses and the protection of the interests of the majority of the occupants, and it also violates the minimum principle of damages, thereby infringing on the essential contents of the property rights of the successor by deviating from the proportionality principle as the limitation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.

In addition, if Articles 6 and 13(1) of the above Code are interpreted to be able to succeed to the delinquent management expenses incurred in relation to the use and profit-making of the former tenant against the will of the new tenant, it would result in compulsory acquisition of another's obligation without the consent of the new tenant. On the other hand, as to damages that a community is formed by possession or ownership of a certain object and a specific member fails to perform the obligation arising from the use and profit-making of the object, it cannot be deemed to be the realization of public interest by simply imposing obligations on the person who acquired only the object, regardless of the specific member's obligation. Thus, the above provision is contrary to the principles of private autonomy or loses social validity.

Ultimately, the above management rules are not only excessively infringing on the property rights of successors in violation of the principle of proportionality required under the Constitution, but also violate the principles of private autonomy or lose social validity, and thus they are not effective in violation of the good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Code.

B. As to the interpretation of the Decree on Management of Multi-Family Housing

The provisions of Article 9(4) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing and Article 6 of the Management Rule of this case are interpreted to mean that the contents of the Management Rules concerning the management, use, etc. of multi-family housing are effective for the successor even if they were enacted before succession, and in relation to the management expenses, the successor shall pay the management expenses pursuant to the Management Rules as the occupant even if they were enacted before succession, and shall not be construed to have succeeded to the delinquent management expenses of the former occupant. Furthermore, if the obligations of the former occupant are interpreted to have been succeeded to under the provisions of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing, the above provisions do not constitute an unconstitutional provision that excessively infringes on the essential contents of property rights by excessively infringing on the property rights of the successor by deviating from the proportionality principle as a limitation of fundamental rights as seen earlier.

C. As to the interpretation of Article 18 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-unit residential building Act").

Article 18 of the Multi-unit Building Act provides that "the claim that the co-owner has against another co-owner with respect to the section for common use may be exercised against the special successor." However, the defendant's delinquent management fee claim is arising from the price-related relationship with the use of the exclusive ownership of the apartment in this case, and it is not the "claim with respect to the section for common use," and the defendant is only an autonomous management organization, and it cannot be viewed as a co-owner with a share to the section for common use of the apartment in this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot succeed to the management fee obligation of the former

D. Whether there exists an intention of succession

Even if the Plaintiff acquired the apartment of this case at a lower price through auction with knowledge that the management expenses of the apartment of this case were overdue, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff intended to succeed to the liability for payment solely on the fact that he was aware that the management expenses were overdue.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. As to the interpretation of the instant management rules and the Decree on Management of Multi-Family Housing

Article 13(1) of the Management Rules provides that a person who succeeds to the status of a tenant with respect to the entire claim for delinquent management expenses shall also be entitled to exercise the right of a person other than a sectional owner. However, in light of Article 28(3) of the Management Rules which provides that the Management Rules shall not infringe any right of a person other than a sectional owner, allowing the former owner to succeed to the delinquent management expenses shall not be effective unless the special successor explicitly or explicitly approves the Management Rules, and Article 6 of the Management Rules and Article 9(4) of the Management Rules and Article 42(1) of the Management Rules of the Multi-Family Housing Act provide that the management rules shall not infringe any right or duty of a person other than a sectional owner, which goes beyond the limits of establishment of the Management Rules, which is an autonomous norm of the management rules, and the matters infringing on an individual's fundamental rights are against the principles of private autonomy. Thus, each of the above provisions pointed out by the special successor shall not be interpreted to be effective for the successor, even if they were enacted before succession to the management expenses.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding the legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal (However, the interpretation of Article 18 of the Multi-Family Building Act may be deemed to have been made in accordance with the purport of Article 13 (1) of the above Management Rules, and the part concerning the management fee for common areas under the above Rules becomes effective, and thus, the part of the judgment of the court below to the extent that

B. As to the interpretation of Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act

Article 254 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 471 of Feb. 22, 1958) provides that "a co-owner's claim against another co-owner as to the co-owner's common property may also be asserted against that other co-owner." However, this part has been deleted under the current Civil Act, but Article 18 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 18 of the former Civil Act), which had been deleted after the enactment of the Act, was made. Since the common use area of an aggregate building is extended to the interests of all co-owners, the common use area of an aggregate building should be jointly maintained and managed, and the claim between the co-owners for the expenses incurred in order to maintain and manage it appropriately, it is necessary to guarantee that the special provision should be made so that the special provision should be made to the special successor regardless of whether the co-owner's wishes to succeed to the common use area, which prevents liability to the other co-owner's common use area through acts such as selling the sectional ownership right to the other co-owner, and it should be excessively balanceded to the management fee.

In addition, even though the management body like the defendant is not a co-owner stipulated in Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, each co-owner can manage the section for common use in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Act and claim against the other co-owners who have paid expenses in excess of his/her own shares (see Article 266 of the Civil Act). Since the management body like the defendant as the organization of the co-owner of an aggregate building and the defendant as the organization of the co-owner of an aggregate building is granted the right to collect the management fee for the section for common use, which is exercised by the management body such as the defendant, based on the above co-owner's claim, the defendant should be viewed

In addition, in the light of the legitimacy and necessity of the purpose, the succession to the management fee for common areas by law to the special successor does not violate the essential contents of the property right by deviating from the proportionality principle.

Meanwhile, the above interpretation is likely to cause unexpected damages to the successful bidder due to the legal burden of the object of auction. However, this problem is not limited to the management fee for the section for common use, but may occur when there is a defect in the object of auction, and it is inevitable in the auction system. It is not impossible for the successful bidder to investigate whether the former owner's delinquent management fee is paid when the building is sold under divided ownership, and it is also impossible to divide the apartment management fee for the case into the section for common use and the section for exclusive use.

Therefore, the part concerning the management fee for common areas under Article 13 (1) of the Management Rules is based on Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act and is valid. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, a special successor to the apartment of this case, should succeed to the common areas among the delinquent management fee for the former tenant.

Therefore, the court below should further examine which item among the delinquent management fees in this case pertains to the common area and determine that the corresponding management fees shall be succeeded to the plaintiff. However, the court below's failure to reach this conclusion is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability of the special successor to the delinquent management fees by the former owner of the apartment, and therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

C. In full view of the provisions of Article 3 subparag. 4 and Article 38(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Articles 3(1), 10(6), and 11 of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing, and the management rules of this case, the defendant is also the subject of the imposition and collection of the management fees of this case (as seen in the above, the defendant did not dispute the fact that the defendant is the managing body of the apartment of this case) and the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, 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, except for a dissenting opinion by Justice Seo-sung, Justice Seo-dam, and Justice Cho Yong-woo.

4. The separate opinion by Justice Seo-sung, Justice Seo-dam and Justice Lee Yong-woo is as follows.

A. Article 28(1) of the Multi-unit Building Act (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-unit Building Act") and Article 9(1) of the former Decree on the Management of Multi-unit Housing (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16069, Dec. 31, 198; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that the apartment management agreement of this case, which was established pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Multi-unit Building Act and Article 9(1), shall also have effect on the successful bidder under Article 42(1) of the Multi-unit Building Act and Article 9(4) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-unit Housing. However, Article 13(1) of the Management Rules of this case provides that "the management authority may also exercise the right to claim for management expenses, usage fees, and special repair expenses against the successor to the status of the

B. (1) The majority opinion states that the part of Article 13 (1) of the Management Rules of the apartment building of this case stipulating the succession of the delinquent management fee for the section for exclusive use is invalid unless the special successor explicitly or implicitly approves the management rules, in light of Article 28 (3) of the Management Rules of the Aggregate Buildings Act that provides that the right of a person other than a sectional owner shall not be undermined by the management rules.

(2) A management body comprised of all sectional owners pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act is an unincorporated association, and the regulations set by the management body meeting are municipal ordinances and rules, which are effective not only the sectional owners but also the special successor or the possessor. Since an aggregate building is a building jointly owned and used by a large number of people, it is permissible to impose certain restrictions on the rights of the sectional owners, the special successor or the possessor, unless such restrictions are contrary to the Constitution or other statutes.

(3) Article 28(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that "the rights of a person other than the sectional owner shall not be undermined by the regulations." Generally, the effect of the agreement shall be confirmed to only the parties to the agreement and the general successor. Since the sectional owner referred to in this provision includes not only the sectional owner at the time of the enactment of the agreement but also the sectional owner after the enactment of the regulations, it does not violate Article 28(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act to limit the rights of the special successor of the sectional owner. Since the special successor of the sectional owner is naturally a member of the management body by acquiring the sectional ownership, the resolution of the management body meeting at the time of the management body's succession shall be effective, and Article 42(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that the resolution of the management body meeting at the time of the management body's succession shall be effective. If the logic is followed by the majority opinion, other than the sectional owner at the time of the enactment of the agreement, the provisions of the regulations restricting the rights of the special successor or the possessor shall be beyond the limits of the establishment.

(4) In addition, acquiring the divided ownership of an aggregate building is a member of a management body based on a community life. It does not violate good morals and other social order to impose certain restrictions on private autonomy through the management rules to the extent necessary and reasonable for community life within such organization. Even if a special successor succeeds to the delinquent management fees of the former owner pursuant to the regulations, the actual amount of the delinquent management fees of the former owner can be easily identified and deducted from the acquisition value of divided ownership, thereby simply resolving the burden on the delinquent management fees by deducting them from the delinquent management fees of the former owner. In addition, where the delinquent management fees of the former owner are paid, the former owner may be reimbursed from the former owner by exercising the right to indemnity. Accordingly, such regulations do not violate the essential elements of the

(5) In addition, it should be deemed that the special successor to a sectional owner acquires the sectional ownership and joins the management body as impliedly approved at least the regulations and the resolution of the management body meeting. It is against the legislative purport of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which aims at the maintenance and management of an aggregate building by coordinating mutual interests between sectional owners, and Article 42(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, not only is the legislative purport of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, unless the special successor explicitly or implicitly approves the regulations,

C. (1) The majority opinion argues that the scope of the obligation succeeded to the special successor pursuant to Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act is limited to delinquent management fees for common areas.

(2) However, even if the management fee for the section for common use is naturally succeeded to the special successor pursuant to Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, it shall not be interpreted that the management fee for the section for common use shall not be succeeded to the special successor, and therefore, it shall not be interpreted that the special successor would not have any provision to succeed to the management fee. The management fee is a property used for the maintenance and management of the whole building and included in or to be used in the future, and the collection of the management fee is essential for the maintenance and management of the aggregate building, and if part of the sectional owners do not pay the management fee, it is ultimately necessary for the other sectional owners. One of the collection method of the overdue management fee, even if the special successor succeeds to the management fee, as in the apartment management fee of this case, the special successor can easily resolve the burden in the process of acquiring the sectional ownership as seen above, and thus, it is not an excessive burden to require the special successor to succeed to the liability for the delinquent management fee for the section for common use. Article 18 of the

D. Meanwhile, as in the majority opinion, if the common part among the delinquent management fees of the former owner is succeeded to the special successor, but it is deemed that the common part and the management fees for the section for exclusive use cannot be succeeded to, another dispute may be brought about because it is difficult to clearly distinguish between the common part and the management fees for the section for exclusive use, and there is a realistic problem that the burden is transferred to other sectional owners who are not related to the said section for exclusive use through the increase in management fees.

E. Therefore, the management fees in arrears by the former owner of the apartment in this case shall not be separated from the common part and the section for exclusive use, and shall be succeeded to the plaintiff who is the special successor. Accordingly, the judgment below shall be reversed, but the majority opinion that the delinquent management fees in arrears with respect to the section for exclusive use shall not be justified.

5. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Cho Jong-Un is as follows.

(a) Heading;

(1) The issue in this case is whether the special successor of the sectional owner of an aggregate building is obliged to succeed to the unpaid management expenses obligation of the sectional owner, that is, whether the provisions of Article 42(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act and Article 13 of the Management Rules of this case or Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Management Decree delegated by Article 9 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Decree can be the basis for the debt burden.

This opinion does not agree with the separate opinion that Article 42 (1) of the Multi-Family Building Act, Article 9 of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing, and Article 13 of the Management Rules provide the basis for the burden of debt, and the separate opinion does not agree with the majority opinion that supports the decision of the court below in relation to the counterargument's argument. Therefore, this part is not re-written, but it is intended to discuss only the part of Article 18 of the Multi-Family Building Act.

(2) In the judicial system, changes in legal relations, especially the occurrence of obligations, should be based upon the legal acts of the parties or the provisions of the law, and among them, the spirit of relevant provisions, such as Articles 23 and 37 of the Constitution, should be based on the provisions that specify the contents and limitations of relevant provisions in light of the spirit of relevant provisions, such as Articles 23 and 37

However, based on Article 18 of the Multi-unit Building Act, the majority opinion interpret that the plaintiff who is the special successor of the co-owner before the succession is liable to pay the amount of the common area out of the unpaid management fees for the multi-unit housing, and the separate opinion states that the special successor is liable to pay not only the management fees for the common area but also the management

However, this opinion considers that Article 18 cannot be viewed as a provision that serves as the basis for the special successor's liability. This is because it is determined in the interpretation of Article 18 as well as in the comprehensive examination of all relevant circumstances such as the relevant provisions.

B. Concurring Opinion and the Concurring Opinion’s argument

(1) As to the interpretation of Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act

(A) Interpretation of "co-owner"

Since Article 10 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings belongs to the co-ownership of all sectional owners, the co-owners of the section for common use refers to the sectional owners.

Therefore, the management body or the council of occupants' representatives (hereinafter referred to as the "management body") does not belong to co-owners. In other words, the management body does not have the right to share in common areas (Article 12), the right to use (Article 11, the exceptional provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 5 of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing) and voting rights (Article 15), and does not participate in the burden and profit-making (Article 17).

Since the section for common use that is obviously provided for only the co-ownership of some sectional owners in accordance with Article 10 of the Multi-unit Building Act belongs to only the co-ownership of the sectional owners, it is clear that the management body does not belong to the partial co-owners.

Furthermore, if the management body considers that it is included in the co-owner of Article 18, and the management body has the right to claim the payment of the management fee for the common area against the special successor as stated in the majority opinion, it should be interpreted that the true co-owner, who is not the management body, has the right to claim the payment of the management fee.

However, the sectional owner does not have the grounds for claiming the special successor to pay the management expenses, and it is not possible to claim the management body to pay the management expenses (see Article 38 (12) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act), so the co-owner, a sectional owner, has no right to claim such payment.

As a result, the interpretation theory of the majority opinion or the separate opinion leads to the conclusion that Article 18 of the same Act provides that only the management body that does not belong to the co-owners shall claim the payment of the right.

(B) Interpretation of "claim relating to Section for Common Use"

Management fees are classified into general management expenses concerning common areas (cleaning expenses, garbage collection expenses, disinfection expenses, elevator maintenance expenses, heating expenses for common areas, water supply and repair and maintenance expenses), general management expenses ( personnel expenses, office expenses, transportation and communications expenses, taxes and public charges, clothes expenses, education and training expenses, expenses for maintenance of vehicles, expenses for maintenance of vehicles, expenses for maintenance of vehicles, etc.) and those concerning exclusive areas (electric, water supply fees, sewerage fees, household heating expenses, water supply expenses, TV license fees, etc.) (see Article 38(13) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 15 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Decree, and Article 15 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Decree). Since general management expenses are not related to common areas but only to exclusive areas, it is impossible to divide them into common areas

However, the Majority Opinion’s interpretation that Article 18 is a ground provision that only allows the special successor to bear the management fee for common areas is not consistent with the legislative intent, as a result of deeming that the legislators established the provision as a ground for imposing the special successor only the amount that cannot be clearly distinguished.

(C) Specific cases to which Article 18 applies and legislative intent

In the case of partial application to common areas, there are many new facilities in common areas or repair of existing facilities, which would normally be paid by the management body in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing, but in the case of payment by one of the co-owners on behalf of the other co-owners due to urgent necessity, etc., the co-owners shall obtain the right to demand reimbursement for the portion to be borne by the other co-owners. If the special successor has occurred thereafter, the special successor is the one who uses the part of the former co-owner's share of the facilities, so it cannot be deemed unfair treatment even if he succeeds to the burden of the former owner, and the need to protect the legal relations is urgently established.

As a result of facilitating the exercise of rights pursuant to this regulation, co-owners' cooperation such as co-owners' co-owners' co-ownership of common areas is expected to be facilitated and the management of common areas is expected to become more smooth.

(2) Regarding the fact that Article 27 (1) and (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act is separately established

On the other hand, Article 27 of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that when the management body is unable to fully pay its obligations with its own property, the sectional owner shall be liable for the obligations of the management body according to the ratio of shares, and Article 27 of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that the special successor of sectional owners shall be liable for the obligations of the management body that occurred before the succession.

Management expenses claims shall be attributed to the management body by blocking the section for exclusive use and the section for common use, and the expenses incurred by the management body for its management shall belong to the management body as debts.

In preparation for the case where the management body is insolvent at the end of collecting the management expenses for the sectional owners or where the management body transfers the section for exclusive use to another person with unpaid management expenses, and the remaining management body whose failure to execute is accumulated due to the occurrence of potential persons, etc., exceeds the obligations against the third party, Article 27 of the Management Body takes the responsibility for installment payment according to the ratio of shares of all sectional owners, and succeeds to the same responsibility for the obligations of the management body that occurred before the special successor succeeds to the special successor. In this case, whether the excessive obligation is the sectional owner or not, or not, which occurred with respect to the section for exclusive use, as well as whether it occurred with respect to the section for exclusive use.

As such, the reason behind the fact that the provisions of Article 27 are separately established on the part exceeding the ability of repayment among the obligations of the management body, and that the provisions of Article 18 are not separately established on the special successor who is the cause of the management body, it can be seen that the provisions of Article 18 are not the grounds for exercising the right to claim the unpaid management expenses before the management body succeeds to the special successor.

In accordance with the majority opinion or the separate opinion, the special successor of a sectional owner is ultimately liable for the obligations owed to the management body by the sectional owner, but the special successor is also subject to the installment liability according to the ratio of shares in respect of the non-performance obligations owed by the management body.

(3) In terms of interpretation of comparison with similar legislative precedents

Article 7 (1) of the Japan's "The Act on the Partitioning Ownership, etc. of Building", which is a legislation similar to the Korean Aggregate Buildings Law, is established with the provisions of Article 18 of the Korean "The Act on the Partitioning Ownership, etc. of Building", and in addition, it is stipulated that "the manager or the management corporation has a claim against a sectional owner in the course of performing his duties or duties." Therefore, the provision is interpreted as a basis provision for the special successor's liability, and there is no help to interpret the same provision in the Korean law that seems to have not intentionally set a similar provision at the time

In short, while there is an express provision of Article 27 above, the legislative attitude that did not set up the provisions related to the management body on the part of Article 18 above, the provisions of Article 18 are clearly shown that the management body is not a basis for the special successor to exercise the management fee claim against the special successor.

(4) In terms of fairness in the position of the person concerned

It is natural that a special successor can claim reimbursement from the former co-owner, the former co-owner. However, if interpreted as the majority opinion or separate opinion, it is necessary to find out the location of the former co-owner after the former co-owner paid the unpaid management fee. In particular, it is easy that it is not easy for the special successor to exercise such right in the case of a special successor by auction or public sale procedure.

On the other hand, since the management body is aware of the matters such as the transfer of the former co-owner, it not only retains related information such as the location of the transfer, but also appoints a manager who takes such affairs outside of court and court (see Article 25(1) of the Multi-Family Building Act and Article 3(1) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing) and it is easy to perform its collection work, so it is considered that the interpretation of the majority opinion and the concurring opinion is unfair even if it is considered that

(c) Conclusion;

In short, the Korean Aggregate Building Act has a system that imposes liability on all the sectional owners of the divided ownership when the result of the impossibility of payment is caused by the management body's property, regardless of whether the section for exclusive use is a section for exclusive use or not.

In order to regulate a smooth community life of many residents in an aggregate building, the need for the settlement by securing the collection of management expenses claims is acceptable, and it does not understand the significance of interpretation theory provided as a solution. However, as the Concurring Opinion or the majority opinion, Article 13 of the Management Rules or Article 18 of the Multi-Family Building Act, if Article 13 of the Management Rules or Article 18 of the Management Rules as a ground provision imposing the obligation of management expenses of the former co-owner to the special successor, it would undermine legal stability due to the concern that there is an unconstitutional concern over the specific validity of one side, and thus, it does not agree with the opinion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is correct, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in whole without imposing the part of the management expenses or the part of the exclusive ownership management expenses.

The final judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) shall be delivered with the assent of all Justices Song Jin-hun who reviewed the appeal of this case, with the assent of all Justices Lee Jin-hun.