학술논문
아파트 전입주자가 체납한 관리비의 특정승계인에 대한 승계여부
이용수 4
- 영문명
- Assumption of prior owner’s outstanding management fee by new owner of that apartment unit Focusing on the Korean Supreme Court Decision No.2001Da8677 of 20 September 2001
- 발행기관
- 한국민사법학회
- 저자명
- 박경량(Park, Kyong Lyang)
- 간행물 정보
- 『민사법학』제34호, 241~275쪽, 전체 35쪽
- 주제분류
- 사회과학 > 사회과학일반
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2006.12.31
7,000원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
A few years ago the Korean Supreme Court decided in a majority opinion that only the section of the management fee applicable to commonly owned property in that unit has to be taken over. But the minority opinion of the Court at that time decided that none of the management fee should be taken over by the new owner of the apartment unit. The majority opinion of the Court should be rejected for the following reasons: (1) The Korean Multi-Unit Act(MUBA)§ 28 clause 3 regulates that the right of a non-unit owner (e.g. tenant) can not be trespassed by the management rules of an apartment. Also, the above Act § 42 c.1 regulates that the management rules of an apartment and the resolution of the management body’s assembly may have an effect on the special successor (new owner) of prior owner of apartment unit. Apartment management rules § 13 clause 1 in this case regulates that the management subject of an apartment can exert claims for management fees, utility fees, and the saving money for special repairs etc. against the successor who succeeds to the status of the prior owner. MUBA § 28 clause 3 states a general rule of principle. On the other hand, § 42 c.1 is a specific rule of exception. Therefore, according to the statutory interpretation principle that a specific rule should be construed strictly, it is desirable that we should interpret it cautiously. (2) MUBA §18 regulates that a co-owner of commonly owned property can exert his claim to the commonly owned property of another co-owner against the special successor of that co-owner. The majority opinion asserted in the above case that on the basis of MUBA §18, the unpaid management fee which succeeds to the new owner, is confined to the management fee of commonly owned property. But MUBA §18 could not be adopted as the reason that the new owner should assume the partial amount of the unpaid management fee. (3) MUBA §27 clause 1 regulates that if the managing body of an apartment could not pay an owner s debts with his own assets, the owner of that apartment unit becomes liable for the uncovered expense to the managing body according to the ratio of MUBA §12. The special successor of an apartment unit, the new owner, should therefore bear the debts of the managing body of apartment before his acquisition of ownership. (4) In the case that the new owner has paid the outstanding management fee instead of the prior owner, (although the majority opinion held that a request for repayment is possible in principle), this measure will prove difficult or even impossible for the new owner.
목차
Ⅰ. 사실관계
Ⅱ. 심급별 법적 판단
Ⅲ. 평석
Ⅳ. 결론
키워드
체납관리비
입주자대표회의의 당사자적격
관리규약
집합건물법 제18조
제42조
주택법
공동주택관리령
주택건설촉진법
공용부분 관리비
관리비채권
관리단 채무,구상권행사
the Korean Multi-Unit Act
management fee
commonly owned property
a non-unit owner
management rules of an apartment
management body’s assembly
special successor
unpaid management fee
outstanding management fee
prior owner
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 보증계약의 특수성과 보증인보호의 문제
- 유럽연합(EU)에서의 民事法 統一化作業에 관한 硏究
- 회생·파산절차에서의 물상대위
- 물권적 청구권의 시효소멸 여부
- 共同相續人 1人에 의한 單獨自主占有
- 雙務契約에 있어서 不安의 抗辯權
- 우리나라 하자담보책임의 본질에 관한 재론
- 상속수단으로서의 신탁
- 선수전속계약 당사자의 법적 지위
- 債權者 危險負擔에 있어서 債務者의 利益償還義務
- 約款에 의한 人格權 侵害와 法律上 統制
- 영국의 차임규제에 관한 연구
- 물상보증인의 지위
- 아파트 전입주자가 체납한 관리비의 특정승계인에 대한 승계여부
- 의사실현에 의한 계약체결과 청약수령자의 의사
참고문헌
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!