공동주택 관리주체들 사이의 법적 지위 충돌에 관한 한ㆍ미 비교연구 - 사적‧단체 자치 원칙의 한계점에서 예외적으로 정당화되는 공법적 규제 -

This study begins with the recognition that, in modern urban society, residential issues in multi-unit housing are no longer confined to the private sphere of individuals but must be addressed at the level of the community. In collective housing environments such as apartment complexes in South Korea and condominiums in the United States, individuals live as members of a community, and accordingly, the traditional principle of individual private autonomy is expanded into the concept of group autonomy. In this context, legal conflicts among housing management entities concerning the maintenance, repair, and replacement of common elements constitute a significant legal issue that reveals the scope and limits of private and collective autonomy. This study conducts a comparative analysis of S. Korean multi-unit housing and U.S. condominiums to examine the legal bases upon which management authority and decision-making power over common elements are exercised. In S. Korea, conflicts arise due to the coexistence of the managing body under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings and the council of occupants' representatives under the Multi-Family Housing Management Act. From a public-law perspective, some scholars argue that, based on constitutional provisions and the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, the State bears responsibility for housing management and that the decision-making authority of the council of occupants' representatives should take precedence. Against this view, the study proceeds on the premise that disputes over the management of common elements in multi-unit housing are fundamentally civil-law issues concerning the realization of private and group autonomy. It further examines whether public-law regulation may be justified in situations where private and group autonomy structurally fail to function. To this end, the study analyzes U.S. condominium law alongside republican and communitarian theories. The analysis demonstrates that the primary purpose of these theories is not to justify the superiority of state authority, but rather to provide a theoretical foundation for institutionally supplementing group autonomy so that individual private autonomy may be meaningfully realized within social associations. Based on these theoretical premises, the study argues that management authority over common elements should, as a matter of principle, be vested in the managing body grounded in the private and group autonomy of unit owners. However, where the managing body fails to function properly, or where non-dominating relationships among members are seriously undermined such that the realization of private and group autonomy becomes substantially difficult, public-law intervention through mechanisms such as the council of occupants' representatives under the Multi-Family Housing Management Act may be exceptionally justified in order to secure public interests and maintain communal order. In conclusion, this study reconstructs legal conflicts among housing management entities around the principle of private and group autonomy, and demonstrates that public-law regulation should not serve as a substitute for autonomy but rather as an institutionally supplementary mechanism justified only in situations where autonomy reaches its limits. By doing so, the study refines interpretive approaches to the allocation of management authority in multi-unit housing and contributes to clarifying the theoretical boundaries of justified public-law regulation while cautioning against excessive publicization.