The judgment below

The part concerning the medium counterclaim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. A management body under Article 23 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") is not an organization established only through any organizational act, but an organization established by sectional ownership as a matter of course in the event that there is a building established by sectional ownership, all sectional owners. Thus, if the sale of an aggregate building is commenced and occupancy is required and joint management is required as a result, a management body is established with all sectional owners, including sectional owners of the unsold section of exclusive ownership at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da45496, Nov. 10, 2005). Meanwhile, Article 41 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that "where there is an agreement in writing with at least 4/5 of sectional owners and voting rights to the matters determined to be resolved at the management body meeting, a resolution passed at the management body meeting to appoint a management body meeting pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act shall be deemed to be adopted at the management body meeting. Therefore, a resolution to appoint a management body meeting may not be held.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below and records, the court below's co-defendant B, C, and F (hereinafter "three persons, such as B, etc.") completed the registration of ownership preservation on September 23, 2005 with respect to one third of each of the buildings of this case, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on September 23, 2005.