[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee]
[Judgment Below] Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na3449 Decided October 7, 2005
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including the supplementary appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal, to the extent it supplements the original grounds) are examined.
1. Regarding the scope of succession to unpaid management fees
Even if the management rules of an aggregate building (집합건물, "aggregate building") provide that the entire claim for unpaid management fees may be exercised even against a person who has succeeded to the status of a resident, in light of Article 28(3) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률, hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act"), which provides that "the management rules shall not infringe upon the rights of persons other than the sectional owners," a provision in the management rules that causes a transferee to succeed to the unpaid management fees of a prior resident concerns matters relating to the rights and obligations between residents and persons other than residents, and thus exceeds the limits of the authority to enact management rules, which are self-governing norms of the residents. Considering also that matters infringing upon an individual's fundamental rights are contrary to the principle of private autonomy unless specifically provided for by statute, such a provision has no effect unless the special successor expressly or impliedly approves the management rules. Furthermore, the provision of Article 42(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act means that matters concerning the management and use of a multi-unit housing complex determined by the residents in the management rules are effective against a successor even if such rules were enacted prior to the succession; with respect to management fees, this means only that the successor, as a resident, must pay management fees in accordance with the management rules, and this provision cannot be interpreted as causing the successor to also succeed to the prior resident's unpaid management fees. However, since the common areas of an aggregate building are provided for the benefit of all co-owners and must be jointly maintained and managed, and since it is necessary to specifically guarantee the claims among co-owners for the expenses required for the proper maintenance and management thereof, Article 18 of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides a special rule allowing such claims to be asserted against a special successor of a co-owner regardless of whether the successor intended to succeed thereto. Accordingly, the portion of the management rules concerning management fees for common areas, being based on this provision, is valid, and it is reasonable to hold that a special successor of an aggregate building must succeed to the portion of a prior resident's unpaid management fees relating to the common areas (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Da8677 Decided September 20, 2001).
The court below, having comprehensively considered the evidence it adopted and found the facts as stated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant, as the special successor of the real property at issue, succeeds only to the portion of the unpaid management fees of the non-party company, a prior resident-in-title, relating to the common areas, notwithstanding the management rules of the aggregate building to which the real property belongs, and does not succeed to the management fees relating to the exclusively-owned areas. In light of the record and the legal principles set forth above, the fact-finding and determination of the court below are justified, and there is no error therein such as a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the interpretation of the Aggregate Buildings Act as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. Regarding whether late fees are subject to succession
A late fee imposed for delayed payment of management fees is a form of penalty for breach of obligation, and even if a special successor of an aggregate building succeeds to the unpaid management fees for common areas of a prior resident, this does not mean that the successor also succeeds, as is, to the legal effects that have already arisen from the prior resident's delay in paying management fees. Therefore, late fees on unpaid management fees for common areas are not included in the common area management fees that are succeeded to by a special successor of an aggregate building (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, 3604 Decided June 29, 2006).
The court below determined that the late fees that had already accrued on the management fees unpaid by the non-party company, a prior resident-in-title of the real property at issue, cannot be deemed to be succeeded to by the Defendant, the special successor of the real property, notwithstanding the provisions of the management rules of the aggregate building to which the real property belongs. In light of the record and the legal principles set forth above, the fact-finding and determination of the court below are justified, and there is no error therein such as a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the scope of succession to unpaid management fees, or insufficient deliberation concerning late fees accruing after the succession of ownership (it is clear from the record that the Plaintiff did not separately seek payment thereof), as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. Regarding the statute of limitations
A. The term "claims fixed to be paid within a period of one year" under Article 163, Item 1 of the Civil Code (민법), which is subject to a short-term statute of limitations of three years, refers to claims that are paid periodically at intervals of one year or less (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da25302 Decided September 20, 1996), and claims for management fees of an aggregate building, which are paid on a monthly basis, fall under this category. Accordingly, the determination of the court below, which, in the same vein, partially accepted the Defendant's defense of the statute of limitations, is justified, and there is no error therein such as a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the legal nature of management fee claims, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
B. According to the record, it can be recognized that the Defendant agreed with an employee of the Plaintiff around January 2004 to settle the unpaid management fees in accordance with a court judgment, and that the Defendant was aware, prior to acquiring the real property at issue, that unpaid management fees of a prior owner existed. However, these facts alone are insufficient to find that the Defendant waived the benefit of the statute of limitations vis-à-vis the Plaintiff, or that the Defendant's defense of the statute of limitations violates the principle of good faith or constitutes an abuse of rights. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal alleging that the judgment below is erroneous due to omission of judgment, insufficient deliberation, failure to exercise the right to seek clarification, and misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning good faith and abuse of rights, cannot be accepted either.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice), Kim Hwang-sik, Lee Hong-hoon (Justice in Charge), Ahn Dae-hee