The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the enforcement decree of the law can only provide for the matters delegated by the law of the parent corporation or detailed matters necessary for the real enforcement of the law within the scope stipulated by the law, and it is not possible to modify or supplement the contents of rights and obligations of an individual provided by the law, or to provide new matters not provided by the law, unless otherwise delegated by the law (Supreme Court Decision 195 delivered by the

10. In addition, in a case where it is not clear whether the provisions of the Enforcement Decree conflict with the mother law, and in a case where it is possible to interpret that the provisions of the parent law and other provisions of the Enforcement Decree are consistent with the mother law by comprehensively examining whether the provisions of the parent law conflict with the parent law, the provisions shall not be declared null and void as a violation of the parent law if it is possible to interpret them as being consistent with the mother law by comprehensively examining the provisions of the parent law and their legislative purport, history, etc. In addition, this legal principle is based on the presumption principle that the conflict between the above and the subordinate regulations is to be excluded to the maximum extent possible, as the state's legal system forms its own unification, as well as on the principle that the rules in the democratic law state are in accord with the upper law, and in a case where the subordinate law is declared null and void as it actually goes against the upper law, it is necessary to avoid such harm (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du27160, Aug. 24, 2001).

Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19051, Sep. 16, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that "where a public rental house is converted for sale after the expiration of the mandatory rental period under Article 15 of the Act, it shall be converted for sale on a preferential basis to any of the following persons," and subparagraph 4 of Article 10 provides that "if an occupant is selected by the first-come first-served method under Article 10(6) of the Rules on Housing Supply, it shall be deemed that the first-served tenant who is homeless at the time of conversion is not the first-served tenant, and it shall be deemed that the first-served tenant is not the first-served tenant, but the second-served tenant who is a homeless tenant at the time of conversion is not the first-served tenant, and thus, if the tenant is selected by the first-served tenant at the time of conversion, it shall be interpreted that the first-served tenant is not the first-served tenant."

Meanwhile, there was an agreement between a lessor and a lessee on the time of preferential sale in lots regarding the conversion of a rental house to a lessee under Article 15 (1) of the Act, and where a lessee is entitled to preferential sale during the agreed period for sale in lots, a lessor is obligated to convert the leased rent into parcelling-out in accordance with the said agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da14103, Aug. 25, 2006). In such a case, the legal relationship on whether a lessee is entitled to preferential sale in lots has already been completed or terminated at the time of the said agreement.

Therefore, Article 15(1) of the Act amended by Act No. 7598 of July 13, 2005 provides that "where rental housing ... is converted for sale in lots, it shall be converted to sale in preference to any of the following tenants." Article 15(1) of the Act provides that "if an occupant is selected by the first-come first-served method, it shall be converted to sale in lots to any of the following tenants." Article 15(4) of the Act provides that "if an occupant is selected by the first-come first-served method, the scope of persons eligible for preferential sale in lots, which was limited to the first-served lessee who is a homeless tenant at the time of conversion in lots, shall be extended to a lessee who is a homeless person. Even if there is no transitional provision regarding the application of Article 15(1) of the Act amended as mentioned above, Article 15(1) of the Act shall apply to the lease relationship in which the period of

According to the records, Article 15(1) of the amended Act does not apply to this case, since the period of conversion for sale in lots has already arrived on November 30, 2004, prior to the entry into force of Article 15(1) of the amended Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the plaintiff is not entitled to preferential purchase because there is no evidence to prove that he is the householder on November 30, 2004 at the expiration of the mandatory lease period, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the qualifications for preferential sale of rental housing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2, the selection of residents in the first-come-served manner pursuant to Article 10(6) of the Rules on Housing Supply

As seen earlier, in the case of determined housing units, rental housing units can be preferentially converted for sale in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Act only if the housing units constituted a homeless house owner at the time of such conversion for sale in lots. Therefore, it is not possible to acquire preferential sale conversion on the sole basis that the tenant was recognized at the time of selection of occupants.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lessor is obligated to preferentially convert the sale of land to the Plaintiff even if the Plaintiff is not the householder, since the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. did not confirm whether the Plaintiff constitutes a homeless householder, it shall be justified, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it shall not be deemed that there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jae-chul et al.

Justices Kim Gin-tae

Justices Cha Han-sung