1. As to the grounds of appeal related to “first-come-served lessee”, “non-leased lessee”, and the burden of proof

A. (1) Articles 1 and 21(1) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12704, May 28, 2014; hereinafter the same) provide that, in cases where rental business operators make a conversion of rental housing constructed with funding from the National Housing Fund under Article 60 of the Housing Act among the housing constructed with approval of a business plan after the expiry of the mandatory rental period, the said rental business operators shall first make a conversion into sale of rental housing for sale after the lapse of the mandatory rental period to the lessee who has resided in the relevant rental housing from the date of occupancy to the date of conversion into sale in lots (Article 1) and the lessee who is a homeless (Article 4) who has resided in the relevant rental housing at the time of conversion into sale in lots (Article 1).

(2) According to Article 19(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Rules on Housing Supply”) stipulating the eligibility and method of selection of lessees of the publicly constructed rental housing (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport; hereinafter “former Rules on Housing Supply”) limits the object of supply of national housing, etc. to the head of a homeless household from the announcement date of invitation of occupants to the occupancy date of a house (Article 4(2)1). In this context, “non-family household owner” refers to the head of a household, including the head of a household (including the head of a household who has not been registered in the same resident registration card as the head of a household and a household who has the

In addition, the old Housing Supply Rules specifically stipulate the procedures for the invitation of occupants (Article 8), the methods for the supply of housing (Article 10), the methods for the supply of housing by type of rental housing (Articles 11 through 13), and the methods for the supply of housing (Article 11 through 13). However, such provisions apply to the supply of housing ordered to a project proprietor by the moving-out of a rental house, but Article 4 that requires a person to be supplied with no house until the moving-in date shall be applied as it is (Article 3(2)5), and Articles 11 through 13 shall not apply to the case where there is a house remaining after the selection of a tenant pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 and 10(6) (Article 10(6)).

(3) Furthermore, the former Rules on Housing Supply imposes an obligation on a project proprietor to request a inquiries by using a housing computer network regarding the period of a person selected as a resident and whether he/she owns a house (Article 21-2(1)), and Article 10(6) provides that, in cases where an occupant himself/herself or a person who belongs to such household owns another house, etc., he/she or he/she owns another house, etc., the said rental house shall be issued to the project proprietor prior to the expiration of the lease term (Article 29(4)1)).

Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act provides that a rental business operator of the publicly constructed rental house of the Do shall enter into a lease contract (excluding cases where a lease contract is entered into with a lessee selected pursuant to Article 10(6) of the Rules on Housing Supply, where a rental business operator enters into a lease contract for the first time to move into the relevant rental house), a rental contract for the first time to convert the publicly constructed rental house into lots shall be confirmed in advance (Article 10(2)), and it shall be confirmed whether a lessee of a rental house owns a house at least once a year (Article 12(3). As a result, the public rental house shall not be leased or sold preferentially to

B. In light of the legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act, the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the provisions of the former Rules on Housing Supply, etc., ① The former Rental Housing Act and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes strictly stipulate the subject of supply and methods of supply of rental housing, but exceptionally provide for the selection of a tenant in a first-come, first-served and first-served manner to allow the selection of a tenant, and relaxs the requirements for conversion for sale in lots. Thus, the term “the selection of a tenant by first-come, first-served and first-served method” under Article 21(1)4 of the former Rental Housing Act should be interpreted as “the case of the selection of a tenant by first-served and first-served method” under Article 10(6) of the former Rules on Housing Supply. (2) It is reasonable to interpret the former Rental Housing Act and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes strictly limit the subject of supply of national housing, etc. to “non-resident housing” in principle, and also stipulate that the relevant rental housing should be ordered in cases where not only the tenant himself but also the household members belong to the same household members (including a lessee and a non-household).

C. (1) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiffs’ claim on the grounds that there is no evidence that Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 constituted a tenant selected on a first-come first-served basis pursuant to Article 10(6) of the former Housing Supply Rules, is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to “the case of being selected as occupant on a first-come first-served basis” or by misapprehending the burden of proof, exercise of the right of explanation, violation of the principle of pleading, violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

(2) Furthermore, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant laws and legal principles as seen earlier, and the record, the lower court is just to have determined that Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 10 were not entitled to preferential conversion for sale under Article 21(1)1 and 4 of the former Rental Housing Act since their spouse owned a house until the time of conversion for sale in lots. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to “non-resident” under Article 21(1)1 and 4 of the Rental Housing Act, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the criteria for determining housing ownership

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant statutes and the records, on the premise that, even if the plaintiff 5 owned another house from the time of occupancy and had already lost it at the time of sale for sale in lots, it cannot be seen as falling under Article 6 (3) 7 of the former Housing Supply Rules, the judgment below that the plaintiff 5 did not constitute a person eligible for preferential sale in lots is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)