[판례평석] 아파트입주자대표회의 법적 성격

The sectional owners of the condominium building have a common interest in the preservation and management of the building, so a managing body of condominium building (mbcb) with all the sectional owners as members naturally is established. In the case of apartments a managing body of apartment(mba) is established. The general meeting of mbcb is top decision̵­making organ of mbcb. In large scale apartments occupants must establish council of apartment occupant's represetative(caor). Caor is representative general meeting and executive agency of the mba. Thus there are two top decision̵­making organs in mba. The change of the section for common use should be ruled by mba, and the management of the section for common use is ruled by caor. This case is an incident in which caor has implemented the change work and request deductible to a sectional owner. The high court rejected the request. The reason for rejection is that the change of the section for common use can not carried by caro. the change can be carried by mba. The Supreme Court has reversed the high court decision. The caro has been delegated from sectional owners, so caro can request. I think that it is legally appropriate for the mba to request the contribution and the chairman of the caro to request this claim as the representative of the mba, because the caro was carried out by the written resolution of mba as the executive agency of mba. However the Supreme Court's decision to recognize the right to claim the contribution of caro is concretely valid, compared to the high court’ ruling that rejected the request of the caro.