beta
(영문) 대법원 2009. 3. 17.자 2008마1306 결정

[부동산임의경매][미간행]

Main Issues

[1] The meaning of "a lessee who resides in the relevant rental house at the time of sale conversion" under Article 15 (2) of the former Rental Housing Act

[2] The case holding that a sub-lessee without a rental business operator's consent does not constitute a lessee with a preferential right in the sale procedure under the Civil Execution Act

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Articles 13 (see current Article 19), 14 (see current Article 20), 15 (2) (see current Article 21 (2)), 15-2 (see current Article 22), and 22 (see current Article 41) of the former Rental Housing Act; Article 10 (1) (see current Article 18) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20849, Jun. 20, 2008); Article 2-4 (see current Article 12) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 1966, Jun. 20, 2008); Article 2-2 (see current Article 20 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act; Article 20 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2016 (see current Article 29 (20) of the Rental Housing Act);

Re-appellant

Re-appellant

The order of the court below

Daejeon District Court Order 2007Ra319 dated August 1, 2008

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) granted the first lessee’s preferential right to purchase the leased apartment as stipulated in Articles 15-2 and 15(2) of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8966, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “Act”); (b) granted the first lessee’s preferential right to purchase the leased apartment as object of preferential right in the sale procedure under the Civil Execution Act; (c) granted the first lessee’s preferential right to purchase the leased apartment as stipulated in Article 15-2 and 15(2); (d) granted the first lessee’s preferential right to purchase the leased apartment as stipulated in Article 15-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act to the lessee on March 1, 2007 without the first lessee’s consent; and (d) granted the first lessee’s preferential right to purchase the leased apartment as the first lessee’s right to purchase the leased housing as well as the first lessee’s preferential right to purchase the leased housing as stipulated in the Presidential Decree No. 2015.

Examining the above circumstances cited by the court below in light of the provisions of Articles 14, 16, and 22 of the Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and Article 2-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the qualifications and methods of selecting tenants and the terms and conditions of lease business operators are strictly regulated. On the other hand, Article 15(2) of the Act provides that the act of the lease or lease without permission or the transfer of lease rights or lease lease, etc. shall be punished as a crime, and Article 15(2) of the Act provides that in special circumstances, such as insolvency, etc. under Article 15(2) of the Act, unlike the principles on the requirements for the preferential right to sell a rental house under Article 15(1) of the Act, the court below is justified to the purport that the same right shall be granted exceptionally to the resident lessee even if the requirements such as the expiration of the statutory lease obligation period are not met, and it cannot be deemed that the act of the lease without permission or the act of the lease is confirmed.

The order of the court below did not err as otherwise alleged in the ground for reappeal, and the ground for reappeal that the sub-lease did not consent because it did not contact with the insolvent rental business operator does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeal.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)