공동주택의 전기료 산정방법에 관한 관리규약의 효력 - 연구대상판결 : 대전지방법원 2015. 6. 9. 선고 2013나20760 판결 -

Abstract

The standing rules for the management rules by each local governments state on the way of deciding the electricity bills in condominiums that it is calculated by terms and conditions of Korea Electric Power Corporation based on monthly usage of each resident, and those standing rules serve as a real management rule with or without slight modifications in many cases. It is prevailing that the electricity fees of each occupant are calculated and levied per rate of residence low voltage contract by the council of occupants’ representatives or management entity, whereas the signed contract with Korea Electric Power Corporation is the residence high voltage contract. This decision appears to be the leading case on the validity of such management rules. This decision ruled that the said management rule was not in effect because it violated the housing act and the principle of private autonomy by altering the contract without the consents or confirmations of individual occupants who, the court held, were the party to that contract, not the council of occupants’ representatives, and it was only within the scope of communal electricity bills that was allowed to be prescribed in the management rule. While I basically agree with the conclusion of the decision, I take this case as one of the conflicting situations between the majority decision inside an organisation and the volition of each member, and show that we can lead to the equal end in this case through the review on the axiomatic proposition that the regulations based on the act on ownership and management of condominium buildings and the management rules formed on the multi-family housing management act can be laid down solely pertinent to the matters among sectional owners regarding the management and use of communal section or criteria for the management and use of multi-family housing. Moreover I demonstrated by mathematical method that there is no justifiable interests in intervening in the name of self-governance of organisations with use of electricity made in privately occupied area. I think the trial and appellate court decisions, including this judgement, kept veering off the track without noticing the aforementioned restriction sign on the regulations and the management rules, so that they either came to an improper destination or had a logical redundancy in their routes as in this case.