Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Excluding a unit owner's vote when the association resolves on a matter concerning it
Supreme Court, Nov. 20, 2025, 2025Da211190 (judgment)
Case name: 기타(금전)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a condominium management association resolves to ratify the bringing of an unjust enrichment claim against one of its unit owners, must that owner and that owner's votes be excluded from the quorum required by Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Buildings, and what does a 'matter concerning' that owner mean?
Holding
Yes. Since the rules of the Civil Act on incorporated associations apply to an unincorporated association so far as they do not presuppose legal personality, Article 74 of the Civil Act denies a vote to the member whose relations with the association are being resolved, so that unit owner and that owner's votes drop out of the quorum count. A written agreement under Article 41(1) takes effect as it stands, the Act setting no limit on its procedure, deadline, form or content, once the owners consent knowing the concrete content; consent from owners holding at least three quarters of the remaining owners and of the voting rights is enough.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그리고 여기서 말하는 ‘관계사항’이란 관리단과 구분소유자가 직접 거래의 상대방이 되는 경우뿐 아니라, 관리단집회에서 구분소유자를 상대로 부당이득반환 등 채무이행을 구하는 소를 제기하는 결의나 그 소 제기를 추인하는 결의(집합건물법 제41조 제1항에 따른 서면 결의를 포함한다)를 하는 경우와 같이 해당 구분소유자의 개인적 이익과 관리단의 이익이 충돌할 염려가 있는 사항을 뜻한다.
Unofficial English translation
And the 'matters relating to' referred to herein means not only cases in which the management body and the unit owner become the parties to a transaction directly, but also cases in which a resolution is adopted at a meeting of the management body to bring an action, such as an action for restitution of unjust enrichment, against the unit owner seeking performance of an obligation, or a resolution ratifying the filing of such action (including a resolution by written consent under Article 41 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings), and the like, namely matters as to which there is a risk of conflict between the individual interests of the relevant unit owner and the interests of the management body.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
비법인사단인 관리단의 관리단집회에서 관리단과 어느 구분소유자와의 관계사항을 결의하는 경우 그 구분소유자에게는 의결권이 없다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where matters relating to the management body and a certain unit owner are resolved at a meeting of the management body of a non-incorporated association, that unit owner must be regarded as having no voting right.
Factors
- 구분소유자 및 의결권의 각각 4분의 3 이상의 서면에 의한 합의가 있으면
- 구체적인 내용을 충분히 알고 합의함으로써 그대로 효력이 생긴다
- 관리단과 구분소유자가 직접 거래의 상대방이 되는 경우뿐 아니라
- 해당 구분소유자의 개인적 이익과 관리단의 이익이 충돌할 염려가 있는 사항을 뜻한다
Unofficial English translation
• If there is an agreement by written consent of at least three-fourths of the unit owners and voting rights each,
• it takes effect as is by agreeing with full knowledge of the specific details
• not only cases in which the management body and the unit owner become the parties to a transaction directly, but also
• matters as to which there is a risk of conflict between the individual interests of the relevant unit owner and the interests of the management body
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 8. 30. 선고 2012다38216 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2012Da38216 decided August 30, 2012
Decisions referred to
대법원 2003. 11. 14. 선고 2001다32687 판결(공2003하, 2325), 대법원 2012. 8. 30. 선고 2012다38216 판결, 대법원 2021. 11. 11. 선고 2021다252540, 252557 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a resolution concerns one unit owner only in part of the claim it authorises, must that owner be excluded from voting on the whole resolution?
The judgment the Incheon District Court gives on remand, which must still decide whether the suit was properly filed, will show how the exclusion works in the count. A later decision treating co-owned units or partial conflicts differently, or an amendment to Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Buildings or to Article 74 of the Civil Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 2 (holding), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 2 (Holding): Primary “Yes. Since the rules of the Civil Act on incorporated associations apply to an unincorporated association so far as they do not presuppose legal personality, Article 74 of the Civil Act denies a vote to the member whose relations with the association are being resolved, so that unit owner and that owner's votes drop out of the quorum count. A written agreement under Article 41(1) takes effect as it stands, the Act setting no limit on its procedure, deadline, form or content, once the owners consent knowing the concrete content; consent from owners holding at least three quarters of the remaining owners and of the voting rights is enough.” vs Independent “A written resolution takes effect when unit owners sufficiently understand its specific content and the statutory three-fourths thresholds for both owners and voting rights are met, without additional formal or timing requirements. An owner cannot vote on matters potentially conflicting with the association's interests, including resolutions to bring or ratify a performance action against that owner.”
Both deny voting rights in conflicting matters, but the primary reading also determines that the owner and votes are excluded from the quorum denominator, which the independent reading leaves unresolved.
그리고 여기서 말하는 ‘관계사항’이란 관리단과 구분소유자가 직접 거래의 상대방이 되는 경우뿐 아니라, 관리단집회에서 구분소유자를 상대로 부당이득반환 등 채무이행을 구하는 소를 제기하는 결의나 그 소 제기를 추인하는 결의(집합건물법 제41조 제1항에 따른 서면 결의를 포함한다)를 하는 경우와 같이 해당 구분소유자의 개인적 이익과 관리단의 이익이 충돌할 염려가 있는 사항을 뜻한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a resolution concerns one unit owner only in part of the claim it authorises, must that owner be excluded from voting on the whole resolution?” vs Independent “How should the three-fourths thresholds be calculated when a unit owner is disqualified from voting because of a conflict of interest?”
The primary reading asks how far voting exclusion extends when only part of a resolution creates a conflict, whereas the independent reading asks how exclusion affects quorum calculation.
그리고 여기서 말하는 ‘관계사항’이란 관리단과 구분소유자가 직접 거래의 상대방이 되는 경우뿐 아니라, 관리단집회에서 구분소유자를 상대로 부당이득반환 등 채무이행을 구하는 소를 제기하는 결의나 그 소 제기를 추인하는 결의(집합건물법 제41조 제1항에 따른 서면 결의를 포함한다)를 하는 경우와 같이 해당 구분소유자의 개인적 이익과 관리단의 이익이 충돌할 염려가 있는 사항을 뜻한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Incheon District Court, in its judgment of 14 February 2025 (2023Na64211), took the view that the consent forms amounted to a written resolution ratifying the suit and that the defendant unit owner's vote counted towards the quorum. On that footing the owners who had consented held units totalling 2,291.7 square metres out of 3,190.23 square metres, which fell short of the three quarters of the voting rights required by Article 41(1), so the court held that no meeting resolution had been obtained and dismissed the suit.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the resolution ratifying a claim against the defendant was a matter concerning that owner and the defendant, so both the owner and the owner's votes had to be left out. The remaining owners numbered 9 and their units totalled 2,587.29 square metres; consent came from 7 of them, 77.7 per cent, holding units of 1,990.23 square metres, 76.9 per cent, so both quorums were met before the close of oral argument below. It found that the court below had misread the law on excluding votes and counting the quorum, reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Incheon District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A resolution that does not concern the individual owner in question and raises no fear that that owner's personal interest conflicts with the association's interest.
- A written consent given by owners who did not know the concrete content, since the written resolution takes effect only where they consent knowing it.
- A case where, even after excluding the interested owner and that owner's votes, the remaining owners or voting rights fall short of three quarters.
Record verification notes
Check first whether the unit in question is co-owned and whether the co-owners designated who exercises the vote, since the Court excluded a co-owner who alone signed the consent form, where the equal-share co-owner did not sign and nothing showed the signer had been designated to exercise the vote. Then read the bylaws for any special provision on voting rights; absent one, the vote follows the ratio of exclusive-part areas under Article 37(1) and Article 12(1) of the Act. Finally, set the concrete content on the consent form against the resolution it is said to ratify.
From the official text
Points at issue
집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제41조 제1항에서 정한 서면에 의한 합의의 성립 요건 / 비법인사단인 관리단의 관리단집회에서 관리단과 어느 구분소유자와의 ‘관계사항’을 결의하는 경우, 민법 제74조에 따라 그 구분소유자에게는 의결권이 없는지 여부(적극) / 여기에서 말하는 ‘관계사항’의 의미
Unofficial English translation
Requirements for the formation of an agreement by written consent under Article 41 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings / Whether, when 'matters relating to' the management body and a certain unit owner are resolved at a meeting of the management body of a non-incorporated association, that unit owner has no voting right pursuant to Article 74 of the Civil Act (affirmative) / Meaning of 'matters relating to' referred to herein
Summary of the holding
집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률(이하 ‘집합건물법’이라 한다) 제41조 제1항은 관리단집회에서 결의할 것으로 정해진 사항에 관하여 구분소유자 및 의결권의 각각 4분의 3 이상의 서면에 의한 합의가 있으면 관리단집회의 결의가 있는 것으로 본다고 규정한다. 집합건물법은 서면에 의한 합의의 절차나 시한, 합의서의 형식과 내용 등에 관하여 아무런 제한을 두지 않았으므로, 서면 결의는 구분소유자들이 구체적인 내용을 충분히 알고 합의함으로써 그대로 효력이 생긴다. 한편 비법인사단에 대하여는 사단법인에 관한 민법 규정 중 법인격을 전제로 하는 것을 제외한 규정들이 유추적용되고, 민법 제74조에서는 사단법인과 어느 사원과의 관계사항을 의결하는 경우 그 사원은 결의권이 없다고 정하고 있으므로, 비법인사단인 관리단의 관리단집회에서 관리단과 어느 구분소유자와의 관계사항을 결의하는 경우 그 구분소유자에게는 의결권이 없다고 보아야 한다. 그리고 여기서 말하는 ‘관계사항’이란 관리단과 구분소유자가 직접 거래의 상대방이 되는 경우뿐 아니라, 관리단집회에서 구분소유자를 상대로 부당이득반환 등 채무이행을 구하는 소를 제기하는 결의나 그 소 제기를 추인하는 결의(집합건물법 제41조 제1항에 따른 서면 결의를 포함한다)를 하는 경우와 같이 해당 구분소유자의 개인적 이익과 관리단의 이익이 충돌할 염려가 있는 사항을 뜻한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
민법 제74조, 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제41조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger