Seoul Gangnam-gu 14 - 5

Maximum President of the Representative

Manager Kim

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Jin, Lee Jong-chul, Park Jong-young,

28mana pastatas

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the apartment of this case is a leased apartment that is leased to a homeless household owner, such as a person eligible for livelihood assistance, in accordance with the Housing Act, the Rental Housing Act, and the Rules on Housing Supply. On November 21, 1991, the defendant stated the fact that the lease contract of this case was renewed every two years after the lease from the plaintiff on February 18, 2002, and that the lease contract of this case was renewed on February 16, 2004 and February 28, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "the first, second, and third renewal contract of this case") and that in case where the lessee has leased the rental house in a false or other unlawful way at the time of entering into each renewal contract of this case, the lease contract of this case is canceled or refused (Article 10 (1) 1 of the General Conditions of Contracts).

A lessee of a house that is supplied preferentially to a homeless household, such as the apartment of this case, shall continue to meet the requirements of a homeless household for the term of lease, and if he fails to maintain the requirements as a homeless householder during the term of lease, he/she shall lose the requirements for the tenant. Furthermore, in cases where the lessee implicitly and renewed the lease, he/she constitutes a ground for termination of the contract as provided in Article 10 (1) 1 of the General Conditions of the contract, which constitutes "where he/she was leased a rental house by fraudulent or other unlawful means." In addition, even if the lessor had renewed the lease without knowing such fact, the lessor who became aware of such fact after he/she had become aware may be deemed a ground for termination of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da45649 delivered on December 11, 200

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's child acquired the ownership of another house on June 1, 2001 and transferred the resident registration to another place on September 26, 2001 after having made a move-in report to the apartment of this case on September 26, 2001. Thus, it is clear that the requirements of the tenant were lost because the defendant failed to meet the requirements of the non-resident during the lease term under the second renewal contract of this case, and if the defendant entered into the third renewal contract of this case with the consent of this fact, it constitutes a case where the housing was leased by false or other unlawful means as stipulated under Article 10 (1) 1 of the General Conditions of the above contract, and thus, the court below held that the defendant was leased the apartment of this case by fraudulent or other unlawful means.

The court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim seeking the transfer of the apartment of this case on the ground of the termination of the third renewal contract of this case on the ground that the circumstance that the defendant lost the requirements of the third renewal contract of this case as a homeless householder without making a clear judgment as to the plaintiff's claim. The court below erred by omitting the plaintiff's claim as to the reason for termination of the third renewal contract of this case, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the circumstance that the defendant lost the requirements of the third renewal contract of this case as a homeless householder is extinguished before the conclusion of the third renewal contract of this case.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Park Si-hwan

Justices Park Il-il