【 Case 】 A 9-story residential building in a residential area in Guangzhou, Guangdong, is inconvenient for homeowners to go up and down due to the lack of elevators. The building owners organized discussions to install elevators. During the negotiation process, 32 out of 44 homeowners agreed. Due to the inability to reach a consensus, the owners ultimately decided that the owners who agreed to install the elevator would contribute to the installation and use of the elevator, while other owners would not contribute, and the elevator could not be used after installation. The owner Guo, who lives on the third floor, did not participate in the investment due to objections to the installation of an elevator. After the elevator was put into use, Guo changed his mind and proposed to pay the corresponding fundraising amount before using the elevator. However, the 32 homeowners who had previously invested believed that Guo had objections to the installation of elevators in the early stages, which caused a delay of more than a year in the elevator installation project and opposed their use of elevators. Guo filed a lawsuit with the People's Court, requesting confirmation that after paying a fee of 10077 yuan according to the previous elevator installation financing plan, he has the same rights and obligations as 32 homeowners for the newly built elevator. Finally, after trial, the court ruled that after Guo paid the funds to raise funds for the installation of an elevator, the representative of the residential owner provided Guo with an elevator card for him to use in the elevator. The court held that the elevator involved in the case is a common part of the building in terms of usage attributes, and Guo and other owners have the right to use and jointly manage the elevator. Guo's use of the elevator is not a matter that should be jointly decided by the owners as stipulated by relevant laws and judicial interpretations, nor will it cause damage to the legitimate rights of other owners to use the elevator. Therefore, it is not necessary to obtain the consent of the majority of owners. According to the principle of fairness, the use of elevators should be based on the payment of raised funds. Therefore, the court ruled that Guo can use the elevator after paying the raised funds for the addition of elevators. The judge reminds that the legal and rational aspects involved in installing elevators are complex and intricate. Neighbors should have more understanding and tolerance, adhere to the principles of voluntary equality, friendly consultation, and fairness in negotiations, and jointly create a harmonious and comfortable living environment. Guo is older and has an objective need to use an elevator. It is within the normal range of expressing opinions to raise objections during the discussion on installing an elevator. If other owners refuse to use the elevator on this grounds, it does not conform to the socialist core values of honesty and friendliness. If other property owners believe that Guo's obstruction of elevator installation has caused them losses, they can file a separate case to claim their rights, but they cannot refuse Guo's use of the elevator after paying the raised funds. (New Society)