A Comparative Legal Study on the Legal Nature of the Homeowners’ Committee in China

China codified the “Owners’ Congress” and “Owners’ Committee” system under Chapter VI of the Property Law enacted in 2007, which regulates sectional ownership of buildings. Among these, the Owners’ Committee functions as the key executive body responsible for implementing the resolutions of the Owners’ Congress and managing day-to-day affairs of residential complexes. However, the current Chinese legal framework lacks a clear definition of the legal status of the Owners’ Committee, leading to considerable interpretative confusion regarding its civil subjectivity. This ambiguity has resulted in practical difficulties in areas such as contract formation, account opening, use of official seals, and legal standing in litigation. This paper first examines the concept, institutional development, and functions of the Owners’ Committee. It then analyzes the primary academic theories in China regarding its legal nature—namely, the general organization theory, corporate entity theory, and unincorporated organization theory—while critically assessing their validity. Based on this, the study explores various practical problems arising from the unclear legal status of the Owners’ Committee, including litigation capacity, relationships with governmental authorities and property management companies, procedural hurdles in decision-making, and deficiencies in oversight mechanisms. A comparative legal analysis is also conducted with Korea’s Residents’ Representative Meeting system under the Multi-family Housing Management Act, to derive implications for institutional reform in China. In conclusion, the legal nature of the Owners’ Committee must be clarified through legislative reform to recognize it as an independent civil subject. This should be accompanied by clear delineation of authority with government institutions and the establishment of robust internal and external supervisory mechanisms. This study aims to contribute to the legal discourse on residential governance in China by highlighting institutional challenges and offering foundational insights for future legislative improvements.