Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Developer's unsold units, membership of the management organisation and the excluded vote
Supreme Court, Dec. 4, 2025, 2025Da213134 (judgment)
Case name: 하자보수비등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a developer still owns unsold exclusive portions of a collective building, is it a member of the management organisation, and must its own units and votes be excluded when deciding whether the resolution requirements for a suit against it on warranty liability were met?
Holding
It is a member. The management organisation is formed of all co-owners as a matter of course, so once sales begin and occupancy makes common management necessary, the developer that still owns unsold portions is a co-owner and belongs to it. Article 74 of the Civil Act applies by analogy to the management meeting, so a co-owner has no vote on a matter concerning the organisation's relations with that co-owner; a developer holding unsold units holds the position of co-owner and of warrantor at once, and has no vote on an agenda item that seeks warranty liability from itself. Whether the suit on the right of subrogation was duly ratified must therefore be decided by counting co-owners and voting shares with the developer's unsold portions left out.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 관리단이 분양자를 상대로 하자담보추급권을 행사하는 소를 제기한 경우 해당 소 제기에 필요한 관리단집회 결의요건이 갖추어졌는지는 분양자가 소유한 미분양 세대 부분을 제외하고 구분소유자 수와 의결권 비율을 계산하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where the management entity files an action against the seller to exercise the right of recourse to warranty liability for defects, whether the requirements for a resolution of a meeting of the management entity necessary for filing that action have been met must be determined by calculating the number of unit owners and the ratio of voting rights, excluding the portions of the unsold units owned by the seller.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
특정 구분소유자가 관리단의 구성원, 즉 구분소유자로서의 지위와 관계없이 개인적 이해관계를 가지는 사항을 관리단집회에서 결의하는 경우에는 해당 구분소유자 및 그 의결권을 제외하여 결의요건 충족 여부를 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a meeting of the management entity resolves on a matter in which a particular unit owner has a personal interest, as a member of the management entity, that is, irrespective of that unit owner's status as a unit owner, the satisfaction of the requirements for a resolution must be determined by excluding that unit owner and that unit owner's voting right.
Factors
- 집합건물의 분양이 개시되고 입주가 이루어져 공동관리의 필요가 생긴 때에는
- 관리단과 어느 구분소유자와의 관계사항을 결의하는 경우에도 유추적용되므로 그 구분소유자에게는 의결권이 없다고 보아야 한다
- 미분양 세대를 소유한 분양자에게는 구분소유자 지위와 담보책임자 지위가 병존한다
- 구분소유자 지위와는 관계없이 담보책임자 지위에서 이해관계를 가지는 사항이므로
Unofficial English translation
• Where the sale of a condominium building has commenced and occupancy has taken place, thereby creating the need for joint management,
• it applies mutatis mutandis even where a matter concerning the relationship between the management entity and a particular unit owner is resolved, and therefore that unit owner must be regarded as having no voting right
• with respect to a seller who owns unsold units, the status of a unit owner and the status of a warrantor coexist
• as the matter is one in which an interest exists by reason of the status of a warrantor, irrespective of the status of a unit owner,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 12. 27. 선고 2002다45284 판결(공2003상, 506)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45284 decided December 27, 2002 (Gong 2003 Sang, 506)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2002. 12. 27. 선고 2002다45284 판결(공2003상, 506) / [2] 대법원 2012. 8. 30. 선고 2012다38216 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where an agenda item concerns both the developer's warranty liability and its rights as a co-owner over the common parts, must the resolution be counted in two parts so that only the first is decided without the developer's vote?
A later Supreme Court decision that treats the developer's voting rights differently, or an amendment to Article 9(1), Article 23(1) or Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Collective Buildings or to Article 74 of the Civil Act, would require this entry to be read again. So would a fuller record of how many of the 208 units were unsold at the closing of arguments and what voting share they carried.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 1 May 2025 (2020Na2027066), held that whether the co-owners had ratified the filing of this suit had to be judged leaving out the unsold units the defendant still owned as the developer. With those units left out, the written consents met the requirement of three quarters of the co-owners and three quarters of the voting shares in Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Collective Buildings, so the suit had been lawfully ratified and the defendant's preliminary objection to the merits was rejected.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It stated that the management organisation includes the co-owners of unsold portions once sales and occupancy begin, citing Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45284, and that Article 74 of the Civil Act applies by analogy so that a co-owner has no vote on a matter of its own interest, citing the gist of Supreme Court Decision 2012Da38216. Reading the appellate reasons against that law and the record, it held that the court below had neither left out necessary examination nor misunderstood the law on Article 41(1) or on the limits of good faith, and the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal with its costs on the defendant.
Distinguishing conditions
- An agenda item that concerns the developer only in its position as a co-owner, such as the allocation of management costs or the use of the common parts, since the exclusion rests on an interest outside that position.
- A developer that no longer owns any unsold exclusive portion, so that the counting question does not arise in this form.
- A suit whose filing was ratified by counting the developer's units and votes as well, and where the requirement would still be met without any exclusion, since the dispute then makes no difference to the outcome.
Record verification notes
Count the exclusive portions and the voting shares twice, once including and once excluding the developer's unsold units, and record which figure satisfies Article 41(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Collective Buildings. Then read the agenda item to see whether it seeks warranty liability from the developer in that capacity alone, since the exclusion turns on an interest that exists apart from its position as co-owner. Finally confirm that the written consents on the file were given for the filing of this suit, here between about December 2024 and about March 2025.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 집합건물 관리단의 설립 시기 및 그 구성원의 범위 / 집합건물의 일부 세대가 미분양되어 분양자가 이를 그대로 소유하고 있는 경우, 분양자는 미분양된 전유부분의 구분소유자로서 관리단의 구성원이 되는지 여부(적극) [2] 특정 구분소유자가 구분소유자로서의 지위와 관계없이 개인적 이해관계를 가지는 사항을 집합건물의 관리단집회에서 결의하는 경우, 해당 구분소유자 및 그 의결권을 제외하여 결의요건 충족 여부를 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극) [3] 미분양 세대를 소유한 분양자가 자신을 상대방으로 하여 하자담보책임을 구하는 안건에 관한 관리단집회에서 의결권이 있는지 여부(소극) / 관리단이 분양자를 상대로 하자담보추급권을 행사하는 소를 제기한 경우, 해당 소 제기에 필요한 관리단집회 결의요건이 갖추어졌는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] The timing of the establishment of the management entity of a condominium building and the scope of its members / Where some units of a condominium building remain unsold and the seller continues to own them as such, whether the seller becomes a member of the management entity as a unit owner of the unsold exclusive portions (affirmative) [2] Where a meeting of the management entity of a condominium building resolves on a matter in which a particular unit owner has a personal interest irrespective of that unit owner's status as a unit owner, whether the satisfaction of the requirements for a resolution must be determined by excluding that unit owner and that unit owner's voting right (affirmative) [3] Whether a seller who owns unsold units has a voting right at a meeting of the management entity on an agenda item seeking to hold that seller liable as warrantor for defects with itself as the counterparty (negative) / The criterion for determining whether the requirements for a resolution of a meeting of the management entity necessary for filing an action have been met where the management entity files an action against the seller to exercise the right of recourse to warranty liability for defects
Summary of the holding
[1] 관리단은 구분소유관계가 성립하는 건물이 있는 경우 당연히 그 구분소유자 전원을 구성원으로 하여 성립되는 단체이므로, 집합건물의 분양이 개시되고 입주가 이루어져 공동관리의 필요가 생긴 때에는 당시 미분양된 전유부분의 구분소유자를 포함한 구분소유자 전원을 구성원으로 하는 관리단이 설립된다. 즉 집합건물의 일부 세대가 미분양되어 분양자가 이를 그대로 소유하고 있다면 분양자는 미분양된 전유부분의 구분소유자로서 관리단의 구성원이 된다. [2] 민법 제74조는 "사단법인과 어느 사원과의 관계사항을 의결하는 경우에는 그 사원은 결의권이 없다."라고 정하고 있다. 이는 집합건물의 관리단집회에서 관리단과 어느 구분소유자와의 관계사항을 결의하는 경우에도 유추적용되므로 그 구분소유자에게는 의결권이 없다고 보아야 한다. 따라서 특정 구분소유자가 관리단의 구성원, 즉 구분소유자로서의 지위와 관계없이 개인적 이해관계를 가지는 사항을 관리단집회에서 결의하는 경우에는 해당 구분소유자 및 그 의결권을 제외하여 결의요건 충족 여부를 판단하여야 한다. [3] 분양자는 집합건물에 발생한 하자에 관하여 구분소유자에게 담보책임을 부담하므로(집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제9조 제1항) 하자담보책임이 문제 되는 경우 미분양 세대를 소유한 분양자에게는 구분소유자 지위와 담보책임자 지위가 병존한다. 그런데 이러한 하자담보책임은 구분소유자 지위와는 관계없이 담보책임자 지위에서 이해관계를 가지는 사항이므로 미분양 세대를 소유한 분양자는 자신을 상대방으로 하여 하자담보책임을 구하는 안건에 관한 관리단집회에서 의결권이 없다고 보아야 한다. 따라서 관리단이 분양자를 상대로 하자담보추급권을 행사하는 소를 제기한 경우 해당 소 제기에 필요한 관리단집회 결의요건이 갖추어졌는지는 분양자가 소유한 미분양 세대 부분을 제외하고 구분소유자 수와 의결권 비율을 계산하여 판단하여야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항 / [2] 민법 제74조 / [3] 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제9조 제1항, 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