2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 3, 2008, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant real estate listed in the attached list of publicly constructed rental houses under the Rental Housing Act (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

However, on February 26, 1999, which was before the conclusion of the lease contract of this case, the Defendant won as well as on November 5, 2001, and moved into the lease deposit in full. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17417, Nov. 5, 2001>

C. Matters not specified in the instant lease agreement stipulated under the provisions of the Rental Housing Act, etc., and Article 27(1) of the Rental Housing Act provides that “A rental business operator may cancel or terminate a lease agreement, or refuse to renew the lease agreement, in cases where a lessee residing in the relevant rental house falls under the matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the lease of a rental house by false or other unlawful means.” Article 26(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act provides that “a lessee leaves the relevant house or moves into a rental house due to his/her winning in the said house or winning in the said rental house” as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, on November 21, 2012, the Defendant had a duty to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant was selected and occupied in another rental house, and that the Defendant expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement to the Defendant.

However, Article 27(1) of the Rental Housing Act and Article 26 subparag. 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which the Plaintiff cited as the grounds for termination of the instant lease agreement, “where a lessee moves into a rental house due to the winning of another rental house,” the meaning of the language and text is