Korean condominium resolutions need two separate counts
When owners of a Korean commercial building or officetel decide on common-area works, a majority of people in the room does not automatically establish the required vote.
The Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings distinguishes the number of sectional owners from the voting rights attached to their property.
A small number of large owners can meet the voting-weight threshold while failing the owner-count threshold, and the reverse is also possible.
This calculator groups an anonymous roster, totals confirmed yes votes and shows the additional owners and voting weight needed for the selected agenda and procedure.
It retains abstentions and missing submissions in the full denominator.
Use it to prepare a tally for review alongside the actual bylaws and meeting records; it is not legal advice or a certificate authorizing a construction contract or manager appointment.
The rules are Korean rules verified on September 23, 2026, not a general condominium standard for other countries.
Statutory defaults for a convened meeting
The following defaults concern ordinary buildings under the Korean Act.
Both the owner-count and voting-weight requirements must be satisfied, subject to the applicable statutory exceptions and valid bylaw provisions.
The denominator is the full relevant ownership roster, not merely those attending.
Owner and voting-weight thresholds for ordinary Korean condominium buildings| Agenda | Each threshold | Act article |
|---|
| Ordinary resolution | More than 1/2 | 38(1) |
| Common-area alteration | At least 2/3 | 15(1), main provision |
| Adopt, amend or repeal bylaws | At least 3/4 | 29(1) |
| Alteration changing ownership rights | At least 4/5 | 15-2(1), main provision |
| Reconstruction under this Act | At least 4/5 | 47(2), main provision |
Article 15 allows an ordinary resolution for specified exceptions, including an improvement that does not involve excessive cost.
The calculator does not classify repairs, alterations or changes to ownership rights from the project name or price.
Review the design, scope and rights affected before selecting an agenda.
For manager appointments or dismissals, Article 24 also requires distinguishing the meeting route from a management-committee route provided in the bylaws.
Preservation acts and statutory occupant-voting exceptions require separate review.
Written votes at a meeting versus consent without a meeting
A convened meeting
Article 38(2) permits voting in writing, electronically or through a proxy.
A written voting channel does not itself turn an ordinary meeting resolution into a higher-threshold written-consent procedure.
Select the convened-meeting procedure and apply the threshold for the actual agenda.
No meeting is convened
Article 41 generally requires at least 3/4 of owners and voting rights to agree in writing or electronically without a meeting.
Ordinary ownership-right alterations and reconstruction retain the 4/5 requirement.
An in-person show of hands cannot simply be relabeled as written consent.
The current general Article 41 threshold follows the amendment effective September 29, 2023.
Do not apply an older blanket 4/5 written-consent threshold to every agenda, or lower the ownership-right and reconstruction exceptions to 3/4.
The Tourism Promotion Act resort-condominium exceptions and restoration after partial destruction are outside this calculator’s supported scope.
Prepare the evidence and anonymous roster
Area or confirmed bylaw voting weights
Under Article 37, voting rights follow the Article 12 ownership proportions unless the bylaws provide otherwise.
Enter the exclusive-area basis used for voting, not an advertised gross or supplied floor area.
Any required Article 12(2) allocation of partial common areas must already be included; the calculator does not interpret building registers or allocate those areas for you.
If the bylaws provide separate voting weights, enter those confirmed weights consistently for every row.
They need not total 100: the full entered total becomes the denominator.
Several units owned by the same person
Reuse the same numeric owner code for each unit.
The calculator counts that code once and adds its weights.
Keep the original owner codes where one proxy represents several owners.
Conflicting votes, channels or joint-representative checks under the same code stop calculation rather than selecting one record arbitrarily.
Resolve ownership transfers, corporate identities and ownership arrangements before completing the roster.
Weights must be positive, at most 100,000,000 per row and have no more than four decimal places.
Up to 200 unit rows are supported, with owner codes from 1 to 9999.
Empty or invalid values do not become zero silently.
No names, contact details or property addresses are required.
The roster is calculated in the browser without persistent storage; save the report before refreshing if you need a record.
Joint ownership, abstentions and missing submissions
Article 37(2) requires co-owners of one exclusive unit to designate one person to exercise voting rights.
Represent a simple joint-ownership group with a code consistent with a confirmed owner-count treatment, then check the representative status.
Designating a representative does not automatically resolve cases where members also own other units individually or belong to overlapping groups.
Obtain a professional count first for those arrangements and enter the confirmed grouping.
Excluded from yes does not mean excluded from the denominator
No votes, abstentions, missing submissions and unverified joint representatives remain in the full owner and voting-weight totals.
An unverified joint group’s yes vote is excluded from confirmed support and leaves review outstanding.
Deleting an owner because supporting paperwork is missing would shrink the denominator and could create a false passing result.
Check roster completeness before interpreting the tally.
Formulas and the meaning of a shortfall
Two exact comparisons
Let N be all owners, Y confirmed supporting owners, T total voting weight and A confirmed supporting weight.
For an inclusive n/d threshold, both Y × d ≥ N × n and A × d ≥ T × n must hold.
For a strict threshold, replace both comparisons with a strict greater-than comparison.
Minimum supporting owners equal ceil(N × n/d) for an inclusive threshold and floor(N × n/d) + 1 for a strict threshold.
The missing-owner count is the minimum less current confirmed support, with zero shown when already met.
The additional voting-weight boundary is based on T × n/d − A.
At exactly half the voting weight under a majority rule, the displayed additional boundary is zero but must be exceeded.
Read “must be exceeded” or “or more” alongside the number.
Input weights are converted to integers at four-decimal precision, and cross-products determine the outcome without rounding a fraction such as 2/3 first.
Percentages and shortfall displays are rounded to at most six decimals for reading.
Additional share is expressed both in percentage points of the full total and in the original weight unit.
Owner and voting-weight shortfalls are independent minima: they do not identify a smallest supporter combination that necessarily meets both.
Worked examples
Five owners, total weight 100, three supporting owners
Assume five owners have weights 30, 25, 20, 15 and 10, with the first three voting yes.
An ordinary convened meeting requires at least 3 supporting owners and more than half the voting weight.
The result is 3 of 5 owners and 75%, so both numerical thresholds are met.
This is a fictional calculation example, not a statistical benchmark.
Switch the same roster to written/electronic consent without a meeting.
The minimum count becomes 4 supporting owners, leaving 1 owner missing.
The 75% voting-weight requirement is met, but it cannot compensate for the owner-count shortfall.
Exact boundary cases
One of two equally weighted owners voting yes gives exactly 50% on both measures and fails an ordinary majority resolution.
Two of three equally weighted owners voting yes meets the inclusive 2/3 common-area alteration threshold exactly.
Likewise, three of four meets 3/4 and four of five meets 4/5.
Reaching an inclusive boundary and exceeding a strict boundary are different requirements.
Step-by-step use and bylaw scenarios
- Confirm the agenda and whether a meeting is convened.
If the works are difficult to classify, verify the applicable provision first.
- Read the actual bylaw voting-right provision and choose adjusted area or confirmed weights.
Record your bylaw-review date and prepare the full roster.
- Enter codes, weights, votes, channels and joint-representative status.
Retain absent owners as missing submissions and reconcile repeated codes.
- Review the roster, bylaws, evidence and consent checks, then read both threshold results and shortfalls.
A checkbox records your review; it does not perform legal verification.
- Save or print the anonymous tally for comparison with original written votes, electronic records, proxy documents and minutes.
Recalculate when the roster or resolution date changes.
A separately confirmed bylaw scenario is available only for ordinary resolutions at convened meetings.
Set owner and voting-weight percentages independently; clearing the strict option makes the threshold inclusive.
The tool does not establish whether the provision is valid or can alter a statutory requirement.
Custom thresholds are disabled for special agendas and consent without a meeting to avoid substituting an arbitrary lower threshold.
Percentages must be above zero and at most 100%; a strictly greater than 100% condition is rejected.
Practical uses and checks beyond the numbers
Before common-area works
Identify whether the missing support is in the owner count, voting weight or both.
Use the tally to explain the roster and process, not to pressure an owner.
Contract-signing authority and allocation of construction costs still require separate review.
Before changing bylaws or finalizing minutes
Compare the anonymous totals with the original records.
Consent from specially affected owners may be required under Articles 15 and 29 even when numerical thresholds are met.
The separate Article 29(2) opposition rule for certain partial-common-area provisions is not calculated here.
Check the notified agenda under Article 36 and the Enforcement Decree’s Articles 13–15: electronic identity verification and timing, written-voting materials and deadlines, and documentary proxy authority and representation limits.
Where an occupant exercises an owner’s rights under Articles 16 or 24, verify the relevant conditions and avoid adding the occupant as a second owner.
Reconstruction and ownership-right alterations also have agenda-content, minutes and fairness requirements beyond a percentage.
This tool does not operate an electronic voting service, authenticate signatures, validate proxies or predict a court decision.
Frequently asked questions
Is a majority of attendees enough?
The statutory defaults use all relevant owners and all voting rights.
Entering only attendees distorts the result.
Review the validity and denominator rules of any separate bylaw provision first.
Does owning several units create several owner votes?
The same owner code counts once while its weights are summed.
Different codes are treated as different owners, so reconcile identities before entering the roster.
Why retain abstentions and missing submissions?
Whether an owner supports an agenda differs from whether that owner holds voting rights.
Removing non-supporters would shrink the denominator and could create a false passing result.
Does appointing a joint representative solve every shared-ownership case?
No.
Overlapping groups and owners holding other units individually require a confirmed legal count first.
The calculator groups the codes you supply rather than deciding the legal grouping.
Does every written vote require three quarters?
No.
Written voting at a convened meeting differs from Article 41 consent without a meeting.
Ordinary ownership-right alterations and reconstruction retain four fifths even under the latter procedure.
Does one missing owner mean any one owner can complete the vote?
Only the owner-count shortfall is one.
The additional owner must also supply enough voting weight for both requirements to hold.
Enter that actual weight and recalculate.
Can a passing result authorize a construction contract?
No.
Notice, agenda, proxy authority, consent from specially affected owners, minutes and contract authority require separate review.
A numerical result does not certify legal validity.
Is the roster saved, and what can I export?
The roster is not sent to a server or stored persistently.
Download a TXT tally or print the screen.
The report preserves the bylaw-review date, checks, thresholds, shortfalls and legal reference dates.
Official sources and update dates
The legal source check was completed on September 23, 2026, using the National Law Information OPEN API.
The Act is Law ID 001262, MST 249285, effective September 29, 2023; the Enforcement Decree is ID 009582, MST 254889, with the same effective date.
Use the building’s validly adopted bylaws, not a model bylaw assumed to apply automatically.
- Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings — Articles 12, 15, 15-2, 16, 24, 29, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 47
- Enforcement Decree — Articles 13, 14 and 15
Recheck agenda thresholds, Article 41 exceptions, voting-right denominators and representation procedures after legislation or bylaws change.
Do not assume that a historic resolution is governed by the same rules as a current calculation.
Prepare an anonymous tally for review
Start with the complete roster, the actual bylaws and the correct agenda and procedure.
Separating numerical shortfalls from unresolved representatives and evidence makes the next discussion with the management body or a legal professional more concrete.
Return to the quorum calculator