2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff was born on February 2, 1968 and resided in the Domsan (hereinafter referred to as the “instant house”) of the Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-gun”) for about 17 years until April 13, 1985, and returned to Seoul for the period from January 6, 2004 after moving to Seoul. From January 6, 2004, the Plaintiff was living in the Mamsan-dong (hereinafter referred to as “2 omitted). Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 born in the year 1994, who were born in the year 192, were born in the year 2005.

B. On January 6, 2004, the Plaintiff’s mother, resided in the instant house, and moved to his current domicile on January 6, 2004, and donated the instant house to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2007, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership preservation on April 16, 208.

C. On July 31, 2009, the Defendant: (a) as the implementer of the ○○○○○○○ Residential Environment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”) in Gwangjin-si (hereinafter “the instant project”); (b) made a public announcement of 859 households of housing units for block 1 (hereinafter “instant housing unit”) located in the instant project district; (c) according to the public announcement above, the Defendant is given three special eligibility requirements for the supply of three children to households with no houses, who reside in the Seoul Metropolitan area (Game, Seoul, and Incheon) as of August 1, 1989 and have three or more children of less than 20 years of age who were born after August 1, 1989.

D. On August 24, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for special supply of three children to the Defendant on September 15, 2009, and won was awarded in the first order as residents of 108 Dong (water omitted) with an exclusive residential area of 85 square meters or less among the housing sold in this case. The housing sold in this case is subject to the sales price ceiling system. Since the housing sold in this case is an overconcentration control region under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act, a person who belongs to the Plaintiff’s household (including a spouse who is separated from the resident registration and a household member who has the same household as his spouse) may not be selected as a tenant or tenant of another housing sold in this case (including rental housing converted in this case after a certain period has elapsed) for five years from the date of the above winning pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 168 of September 28,

E. However, on September 25, 2009, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice on September 25, 2009 that the Plaintiff’s application for special supply would lose its validity by deeming the Plaintiff’s application for special supply as having no intent of contract upon submission of explanatory materials within the above period, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s search was conducted as a multi-unit house and the search result was different from the fact.

F. On September 28, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted to Nonparty 5, the employee of the Defendant Sales Team, a certified copy of the instant house register, a building management ledger, the Plaintiff’s resident registration card abstract, and a certified copy, etc. as explanatory materials, but failed to obtain any notification from the Defendant on October 7 of the same year, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from being supplied with the instant housing unit on the same day (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful (a judgment on the main claim)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the Plaintiff owns the instant house, he/she shall be deemed to be homeless pursuant to Article 6(3)2 of the Rules on Housing Supply (hereinafter “Rules on deemed to be a Houseless Household”).

First of all, “the case where the owner of a house has resided in the housing construction area and moved to another housing construction area” in the provisions for deemed non-family housing owners in this case shall be deemed to include not only the case where he owned the relevant house at the time of housing construction, but also the case where he resided in the relevant housing construction area but also came to own the relevant house after moving to another housing

In addition, the instant house is a detached house with a building located in an area other than an urban area and with no approval system for use in the year 1950 where the instant house was newly constructed, and for which not less than 20 years have passed after the approval for use was granted. Furthermore, the instant house is not only a detached house with a size not exceeding 85 square meters but also a detached house which was built in the Plaintiff’s initial place of registration and is transferred from Nonparty 4, who

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The legislative purpose of the regulation on deemed non-family owners of this case

The first introduction of the instant provision was made by the Rules on Housing Supply as amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 on September 1, 1993. Article 2 Subparag. 7 (b) of the said Rules provides that the owner of a house located outside the urban planning zone and registered for preservation by the owner among the houses located outside the urban planning zone and constructed in the permanent domicile of the owner for which 20 or more years have passed since the completion of the construction, and that the owner of a house transferred by inheritance, etc. from his lineal ascendant or spouse, shall be deemed as a homeless in the event five years have passed since the said house had moved out from the said housing construction area. Article 6 Subparag. 2 of the said Rules amended by Ordinance No. 6 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as of February 11, 1995, the scope of the said provision deemed as homeless is extended to the case where the owner of a house constructed in an area outside the urban planning zone or outside the metropolitan area and moves

As seen above, the purpose of the provision on deemed as a homeless householder is to mainly focus on a house which is irrelevant to real estate speculation in a certain case, even though the house is owned from the first provision on deemed as a homeless householder to the present point of view, even if it is owned by the house from the date of its introduction to the present point of view. In other words, the legislative purpose of the provision on deemed as a homeless householder is to prevent unreasonable reasons which prevent the stabilization of the residential life by excluding the subject of housing supply from being excluded from the subject of housing supply solely on the ground that the owner of the house which is irrelevant to real estate speculation owns such a house, and thus, lose the opportunity to prepare for housing stability by excluding the subject of housing supply and excluding it from the subject of housing supply.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is the owner at the time of residing the instant house

As seen earlier, since the provision on deemed non-resident housing was introduced to prevent an unreasonable ground that the owner of a house irrelevant to the real estate speculation owns such house, it shall be deemed that no reasonable ground exists to treat the owner of the house in question differently from the person who owns a house unrelated to the real estate speculation to another housing construction area and who acquired the ownership of the house after moving into another housing construction area. Such interpretation may be justified in light of the purport of the provision on deemed non-resident housing in this case’s provision on deemed non-resident housing, and that the owner of the house in this case’s housing should be regarded as non-resident (in this regard, the Defendant asserted that the provision on the cases of acquiring the house in this case’s inheritance was applied to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not claim that the house in this case was donated from non-resident 4, and that the Plaintiff would not have received inheritance. However, in light of the legislative purpose of the provision on the cases of acquiring the house in this case’s inheritance, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not own the house in this case’s non-resident housing in this case’s non-resident housing construction without any other reasons.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the regulations on deemed non-households of this case apply only to those who own a co-ownership of a house, and the purport of Article 6 (3) of the Rules on Housing Supply is that "it shall be deemed that they own a house in determining whether they own a house, but in any of the following cases, they shall not own a house, in consideration of the legislative history or legislative purpose, it shall be deemed that they own a house as well as the case in which they own a co-ownership of the house, and if they fall under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, they shall be deemed that they own a house in consideration of the legislative history or legislative purpose, and if they fall under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, they shall be deemed that they own a house, regardless of

(3) Whether the pertinent provision constitutes each item of the regulations on deemed non-households.

According to the circumstances of the above disposition, the area of the instant house is 52.38 square meters, and the instant house is constructed on the first basic domicile of the Plaintiff, the owner, and the Plaintiff’s mother, the lineal ascendant, transferred by donation from Nonparty 4. Thus, the instant house constitutes a detached house as stipulated in B and C. (On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant house constitutes a detached house as it was constructed in the 1950s prior to the enforcement of the approval system for use of the instant house. Therefore, there is no clear evidence to recognize that the instant house was constructed in the 1950s. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on this premise is without merit.

The Defendant asserts that the area of the instant house is 106.28 square meters, and according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, the area of the instant house shall be deemed to refer to the area of the building which is a structure where the members of the household can live an independent residential life for a long time, and the area of the instant house shall be deemed to have been 52.38 square meters, as well as the instant house, on the ground of the Gaamamo-ri (hereinafter omitted) located in the Doamo-ri, Ydong-gun (hereinafter omitted) located in the Jeonsung-gun, Gun, in addition to the instant house. However, in light of the fact that Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9511, Mar. 20, 2009) of the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9511, Mar. 20, 209) of the Housing Act, the area of the instant house shall be deemed to have been 52.38 square meters.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that it does not fall under the pertinent provision, is unlawful, since it constitutes a person who is deemed a homeless household owner.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's primary claim is reasonable and acceptable.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)