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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that was specifically emphasized by the defendant when it comes to the trial of the court of first instance as described in the following paragraph (2).

2. The defendant asserts that the additional part does not succeed to the management expenses of this case, unless there is a management rules that the special successor bears the management expenses for the common part.

Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") provides that a co-owner may exercise a claim against another co-owner with respect to a common area against the special successor. The common area of an aggregate building is provided for in the interests of the whole co-owners, and thus should be jointly maintained and managed, and the claim between the co-owner with respect to the expenses incurred in order to properly maintain and manage it is necessary to guarantee it in particular, so that the claim between the co-owner can be filed against the special successor of the co-owner regardless of his intention of succession. Since the ownership by auction is acquired by succession in nature, the buyer who acquired the sectional ownership by auction shall be the special successor under Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act. The plaintiff is a management body under Article 23 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and even if the plaintiff is not a co-owner under Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff has the status corresponding to the co-owner who can exercise the claim under Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act.