Residents Push Back Against Warning Notice, Raise Concerns Over "Privatization"
"Infringement of Rights" vs. "We Should Be Considerate of Each Other" Split Online Users
Possibility of Legal Disputes if Maintenance-Fee Reduction Terms Are Violated
Debate is raging online over a warning notice posted inside an apartment elevator.
On the 18th, a post titled "If You Live in a Place Like This, Can't You Order Delivery?" was posted on several online communities. The poster, identified as A, uploaded a photo of a notice attached inside the apartment elevator along with a short caption: "What are you going to do if you 'warn' me?"
On the 18th, a post titled "If You Live in a Place Like This, Can't You Order Delivery?" was posted on several online communities, including the online community Nate Pann.
The notice in the photo he shared reads, "Residents on the 2nd floor and delivery workers, do not use the elevator. This is a warning." However, it is not clear whether it bears the management office seal or follows the format of an official notice. It is unknown who put up the warning, or for what reason.
"We pay maintenance fees, why can't we use it" vs. "If it's the 2nd floor, the stairs are appropriate"
As the post spread, opinions among online users were sharply divided. Critics pushed back, saying, "Residents on the 2nd floor also pay maintenance fees that include elevator maintenance costs," "Does one person own the entire apartment building?" and "If there is no management office seal, it is an invalid private warning notice." In particular, regarding the restriction on delivery workers, some pointed out, "What did delivery workers do wrong?" and "The person who put this up probably orders delivery too."
On the other hand, some online users argued, "If it's only the 2nd floor, you can use the stairs for exercise," and "It is true that it is frustrating when the elevator keeps stopping on the 2nd floor during rush hour," emphasizing the need for voluntary consideration from residents on lower floors. Others suggested that "if the residents moved in on the condition that their elevator usage fee would be reduced in exchange for limiting use, it could be a different story."
The elevator is a common facility, and it is difficult to restrict use without formal procedures
Under the current apartment management system, elevators are considered common facilities. In principle, many interpret that it is difficult to unilaterally restrict use by specific floors or specific occupations without formal procedures such as management regulations or resolutions of the residents' representative council. However, in some cases, lower-floor households agree to limit their use in exchange for a reduction in elevator usage fees; in such situations, some note that disputes may arise if that agreement is violated. Even then, mere eyewitness claims are not enough; objective evidence such as CCTV footage, prior notices, and whether warnings were given is required.
This is not the first time conflicts have arisen over elevator use. Disputes over riding with pets, designated hours for moving or construction, and restrictions on use by parcel and food delivery workers show that conflicts over the use of common facilities in apartment complexes have been recurring issues. Among these, this particular post is spreading rapidly online and fueling continued debate. Attention is focused on whether it will end as a simple episode or escalate into yet another apartment complex dispute.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
