The existence of abandonment, etc., whether 2006 Gohap7153 is management or not

A, a corporation

Representative Director-General

1. ○○○ Council of Representatives;

Representative Sub-Chairperson

2. B Stock Company.

▽▽▽▽▽▽

3. A;

October 11, 2006

November 1, 2006

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendants confirm that they are not in the status of the administrator of the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12:

A. The instant building is an aggregate building subject to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter only referred to as the “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) newly constructed by a company X (hereinafter referred to as “X”) as an executory company, and a corporationY (hereinafter referred to as “Y”), and consists of apartment houses of 606 households, business facilities of 14 households, and neighborhood living facilities of 11 households.

B. On July 23, 2004, X, an executor, entered into an entrusted management contract with Defendant B to manage the building of this case from September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005, and Defendant B was managing the building of this case according to the above contract, but the manager was appointed by the resolution of the management body meeting of this case (270 households were owned by the general public). On June 24, 2005, the head of the management office entered into the entrusted management contract with the head of the management body of this case from 2000 to 100, the management body of the building of this case from 100 to 205, which was recommended by Defendant B to 10, the management body of this case. The manager was appointed from 20, the management body of this case from 10,000 to 10,000, the president of the management body of this case.

D. Meanwhile, as the contractor did not receive construction cost from X even after completion of the new construction of the building of this case, Y entered into a payment contract with X on December 30, 2005 that the ownership of 347 apartment houses and 13 households of the instant building among the instant buildings should be transferred in lieu of payment of the claim for the construction cost. Around January 13, 2006, Y completed the registration of ownership transfer in whole for the said 360 apartment units (347 apartment units + 13 households of officetels).

E. After that, on March 24, 2006,Y convened an extraordinary management body meeting of the building of this case. In the above assembly, seven sectional owners including the above company among all sectional owners of the building of this case, the council of occupants' representatives was dissolved, the administrator B was dismissed, and the plaintiff was appointed as a new manager of the building of this case.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, at the temporary management body meeting held on March 24, 2006, dismissed the defendants who had been the former manager with the consent of 59.52% more than the majority of all sectional owners, and appointed the plaintiff as the new manager of the building of this case. Thus, the defendants were no longer in the status of the manager of the building of this case in accordance with the resolution of March 24, 2006, notwithstanding the fact that the defendants were not in the status of the manager of the building of this case, the defendants asserted that the defendants denied the validity of the resolution of March 24, 2006, and did not follow the procedure for the transfer of duties as the manager of this case, and that the defendants were no longer in the status of the manager of the building of this case.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

According to Article 38 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the intention of the management body meeting shall be decided by a majority of sectional owners and voting rights. The Aggregate Buildings Act requires the requirement of a majority of sectional owners in addition to the requirement of a majority of voting rights (see Articles 37 and 12 of the Aggregate Buildings Act) according to such ratio of shares, considering the fact that the aggregate building has a property aspect as a real right and a personal aspect as an owner group or a group of community life, if a specific minority of sectional owners decides the intention of a management body meeting only at the ratio of voting rights when the owner owns a majority of the aggregate building, it cannot prevent such crossing, and therefore, it shall be viewed as a fair and smooth maintenance and management of the divided building. In light of the purport of the above provisions of the Aggregate Buildings Act, even if one of sectional owners has a majority of sectional owners, it shall be regarded as one person in calculating the number of sectional owners.

Therefore, the above resolution of March 24, 2006, which appointed the plaintiff as the manager of the building of this case, obtained only the consent of seven sectional owners including the above company (the total sectional owners of the building of this case exceed 200 persons). Since it did not meet the requirement of the resolution of " majority of sectional owners" under the Aggregate Buildings Act, it is null and void, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was appointed as the legitimate manager of the building of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that whether the Defendants are in the manager of the building of this case directly affect the Plaintiff’s legal rights or status in relation to the Plaintiff, not the sectional owner of the building of this case or the real manager of the building of this case. Thus, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the circumstances that can be seen otherwise as having the interest in confirming the Plaintiff’s legal rights or status, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in confirmation, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all

The presiding judge, the number of judges

Judge Choi Jin

Judges Yoon Young-kon