[1] The case where the Supreme Court can determine the error of interpreting and applying the substantive law even though the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court", which is the grounds of appeal as to small claims

[2] In a case where the council of occupants' representatives or the management body of a collective housing subject to compulsory management performs the duty of vicarious payment for the amount to be borne by each household, such as the usage fees under the former Housing Act and the Management Rules, whether the vicarious payment for the exclusive use portion and the vicarious payment for the amount of electricity usage for the common use portion can be used for purposes other than the purpose (negative in principle)

[1] Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a specific case in a small case, and there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the said statutes, is pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court concludes the case without making a decision on the interpretation of statutes on the grounds that it is small claims, it would be likely to undermine the legal stability of people's lives if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of statutes. Therefore, where there is such special circumstance, even if the Supreme Court does not meet the requirement that "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be deemed as the ground for appeal, it shall be deemed that the error of interpreting and applying substantive

[2] Comprehensively taking account of Article 45(3) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12959, Dec. 31, 2014); Article 58(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25381, Jun. 11, 2014); etc., a council of occupants' representatives of multi-family housing subject to compulsory management or a management body belonging to such management body shall not use the portion for any purpose other than the amount of each payment agency by classifying the payment agency for the portion of exclusive use and the amount of payment agency for the amount of payment for the quantity of electricity used, and the amount of payment for the amount of payment for the portion of common use by proxy, except in extenuating circumstances.

[1] Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial on Small Claims / [2] Article 2 subparag. 14 (a) of the former Housing Act (Amended by Act No. 12959, Dec. 31, 2014; see Article 2 subparag. 10 (a) of the current Multi-Family Housing Management Act); Article 43(1) (see Article 11(1) of the current Multi-Family Housing Management Act); Article 11(2) and (3) (see Article 6(1) of the current Multi-Family Housing Management Act); Article 44 (see Article 18 of the current Multi-Family Housing Management Act); Article 45(3) (see Article 23(3) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act; Article 5(2)2 of the current Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act (see Article 16(1) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act); Article 5(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act (see Article 16(2) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50286 Decided December 27, 2018 (Gong2019Sang, 345)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

○○ apartment council of occupants' representatives (Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Na105375 Decided April 28, 2016

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

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

1. Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a specific case in a small case, and there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the said statutes, is pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court terminates the case without making a decision on the interpretation of statutes on the grounds that it is a small amount case, it would be likely to undermine the legal stability of people's lives if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of statutes. Therefore, in such special circumstances where there is no requirement that "when a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court is made" which may be the ground for appeal, even if it does not meet the requirement that "when a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court is made," it shall be deemed that the error of interpretation and application of substantive laws can be determined in a manner that performs the intrinsic function of the Supreme Court on the unification of statutory interpretation

In accordance with Article 45(3) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12959, Dec. 31, 2014; hereinafter “former Housing Act”) and Article 58(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25381, Jun. 11, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act”), which is the premise of the lower judgment, there is no Supreme Court precedent concerning the calculation, collection, and method of use of charges for each household, such as fees paid by the managing body of multi-family housing on behalf of occupants and users, and there is no lower court’s determination. Accordingly, in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the Supreme Court may determine the interpretation and validity of this part of the lower judgment and the application thereof.

2. According to the former Housing Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, multi-family housing is divided into exclusive sections and common areas, the managing body of multi-family housing subject to compulsory management [referring to the head of the management office of multi-family housing. Article 2 subparag. 14 (a) of the former Housing Act includes electricity charges (including electricity charges for facilities jointly used) and usage fees, etc. (hereinafter “occupants, etc.”) may be paid by proxy to occupants, etc. who are entitled to receive usage fees, etc. (hereinafter “user fees, etc.”) (Article 43(1) and Article 45(3) of the former Housing Act and Article 58(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act). The managing body of multi-family housing shall deposit and manage the said usage fees, etc. with the financial institution designated by the council of occupants’ representatives (Article 58(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act and the head of the management office of multi-family housing shall select the user fees, etc. by not later than the end of the following month, and disclose the details thereof under Article 58(4).

In full view of the contents of the former Housing Act and subordinate statutes, the council of occupants' representatives of multi-family housing subject to compulsory management or the management body corresponding to the management body thereof shall, unless there are special circumstances, divide the payment agency for the exclusive use portion and the payment agency for the common use portion into the payment agency for the exclusive use portion and the payment agency for the common use portion, and use each payment agency for other purposes, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts and circumstances.

A. The instant apartment is an apartment house subject to compulsory management under the former Housing Act. The Defendant has autonomously managed the instant apartment as a council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment.

B. The management rules of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant management rules”) stipulate as follows.

1) The apartment complex of this case is divided into the exclusive part, which is a space used by the occupant solely by the household, and the exclusive part is managed by the occupant and the user. However, the common part is responsible for the management, and the management entity bears the responsibility for the management, and the expenses incurred in the management shall be borne by the management entity in accordance with Articles 58(1) and (2) (the long-term repair appropriations and the safety diagnosis expenses) and (3) (the user fees, etc. used individually by the household are excluded.).

2) The management entity may not use management expenses, including user fees, for any purpose other than its original purpose.

3) As to the calculation method of the amount to be borne by each household of the electricity rates, the term “public facilities electricity rates” shall allocate the actual monthly cost according to the housing supply area, and the term “household electricity rates” shall calculate the monthly amount to be used by each household in accordance with the electricity supply clauses of the Korea Electric Power Corporation. However, the above management rules do not separately provide for the unit price of the electricity rates of the household.

C. In supplying the instant apartment, the Korea Electric Power Corporation imposed on July 2002 the aggregate of the electric power rates and basic charges calculated by multiplying the amount calculated by applying the unit cost of high voltage for housing as determined by the Korea Electric Power Corporation corresponding thereto by the number of households, based on the average volume of electric consumption (the total volume of electric consumption and common area usage) of the instant apartment by the single contract method from around July 2002.

D. During the period from January 2007 to May 2014, the Defendant calculated and collected the amount of the household burden on the aggregate of the electricity charges imposed by the Korea Electric Power Corporation from January 2007 to May 2014, the Defendant: (a) calculated from each household the amount calculated by applying the low voltage rate (the amount is higher than the high voltage rate for residential use and the high voltage rate is higher than the unit price for residential use) set by the Korea Electric Power Corporation to the quantity of the electricity exclusively used by each household; and (b) collected elevator electricity charges; and (c) did not separately collect the electricity charges for the remaining amount of the electricity used for common use (including the electricity charges for industrial and street lamps) excluding the elevator electricity charges (hereinafter “instant imposition method”).

E. As a result of the calculation and collection of the amount to be borne by each household under the instant imposition method, even though the aggregate of the amounts to be borne by each household was less than the aggregate of the amounts to be borne by the Korea Electric Power Corporation and the amount to be borne by the former was less than the latter, a surplus was generated in substitution. Accordingly, among the Defendant’s financial statements, the statement of the balance of the provisional payments, stated “the amount to be borne by electricity” as the item of “the amount to be borne by electricity” in August 2012, and stated “the amount to be borne by the former 3,506,380 won” as the item of “the amount to be borne by the former 10,169,630 won” in December 2013, stating that “the amount to be borne by the former 1,638,810 won was spent by adding the surplus amount to KRW 9,905,240 per month.”

F. The Defendant’s low-tension rate applied to the calculation of the amount to be borne by the household in the instant imposition method is higher than the high-tension rate per house applied by the Korea Electric Power Corporation to the single contract method. As such, the aggregate of the charges to be borne by the household calculated by the Defendant according to the imposition method in the instant imposition method during the instant application period exceeds the amount imposed by the Korea Electric Power Corporation on the total amount to be used exclusively for electricity, and the excess is mainly generated from the electricity charge borne by the households with a large volume of electric usage

4. We examine the above facts and circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

A. The managing body of the apartment of this case shall divide the management expenses, long-term repair appropriations, usage fees, etc. by usage into the management expenses, long-term repair appropriations, etc., and the user fees individually used by the household shall be excluded from the expenses incurred in the management of the section for common use, and shall not go against the purpose of each cost.

In this case where the Defendant imposed electricity charges by a single contract method from the Korea Electric Power Corporation, it is reasonable to view that in calculating and collecting the amount imposed by the Korea Electric Power Corporation for each household of the electricity charges, the Defendant’s vicarious payment for the amount of electricity used for common areas and the amount of electricity used for exclusive purposes is divided according to the calculation method of a single contract method, and the former is allocated according to the housing supply area, and the latter should be allocated by applying a reasonable unit price per household based on the amount of electricity used for each household

B. However, the Defendant collected the excessive amount of charges by household based on the low-tension rate for the use of electricity for the exclusive use of electricity for the exclusive use of electricity, and appropriated the payment agency for the use of electricity for common use, the purpose and character of the payment agency for the use of electricity for the exclusive use of electricity, which differs from the subject in charge of management and the financial resources for bearing expenses. Accordingly, there is considerable room to deem that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties incurred damages by bearing the electricity exceeding the reasonable amount of charges under the instant management rules during the period of request.

C. Therefore, the lower court should have further deliberated on the existence of the difference between the amount to be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties under the instant management rules during the instant period of request and then examined whether the Defendant violated the obligations under the former Housing Act and the instant management rules while calculating, collecting, and using the amount to be borne by each household, and whether the damages incurred by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties were incurred. In so doing, the lower court should have determined whether the Defendant’s liability for damages was established accordingly.

5. Nevertheless, solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) that the Defendant applied the instant imposition method to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties collected in excess of the electricity charges for the section for common use and appropriated the excess collected amount to the electricity charges for common use, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties, and accordingly, the Defendant is liable for damages. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the nature of vicarious payment, such as the usage fees, and the legal doctrine on the calculation, collection, and use method of the household charges, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

6. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Separate] List of Appointors: Omitted

Justices Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)