**********

Service place*********

* the president of the representative*

Attorney Jeong-hwan et al.*

Mayang-si, So-dong**

2. Kim*

Sucho-si, Soyang Dong***

3. Kim*

Sucho-si, Soyang East****

4. Gas*

Sucho-si, Soyang Dong***

5. Kim*

Sucho-si, Soyang Dong***

6. South *

Sucho-si, Soyang Dong***

7. Kim*

Sucho-si, Soyang Dong***

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Lee Jae-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant*

(a)* Defendant 1: from 1,830,70 to 100, 206, from 200 to 128,80, 1280 won per month from 206 to 30,000 [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 80] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 80] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 80] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 80] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 1] [2] [Attachment 1] [1] [Attachment 6] [1] [1] [2] [Attachment 1] [1] [25] [Attachment 1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [25].

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 4, 6 through 9, 13, 14, 19 through 35, 38, 40 through 45, 53, 56, 60 through 65, 68, 69, 78 through 92, 98 through 100, Gap evidence 6-1, 6-1, 6-2, 7 through 12, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4 through 10, Eul evidence 11-1, 12, 17-1 through 5, 17-5, 19-1, 4, 5-1, 5-2, 7, 5-1, 5-2, 7, 5-1, 7-2, and 5-1, 5-2, and 5-2, respectively.

A. The plaintiff is a rental business operator under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Rental Housing Act that has established the construction, improvement, supply, lease, management, etc. of the housing as its main business purpose, from around 195 to around 1995, the plaintiff started construction of the apartment complex for the large-scale low-income housing with 1,295 households in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in November of the same year **** the construction of the 12 apartment complex in the first place in the second place in the apartment complex (101 to 112 Dong), around June 196, 197 (201 to 207 Dong), and completed the registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff.

B. The Defendants concluded a lease contract with the Plaintiff on each contract date entered in the current status of the attached rental deposit with respect to each apartment (each apartment of this case) listed in the separate sheet among the apartment of this case among the apartment of this case (the apartment of this case in this case) and are in occupancy and residence (the lease deposit is the same as the entry in the current status of the attached rental deposit, and the monthly rent is KRW 128,880).

C. At the time of conclusion of each lease agreement on each apartment of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to sell preferentially each apartment of this case to the lessee who is homeless at the time of sale under Article 15 of the Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14915 of Feb. 15, 1996) and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14915 of Feb. 15, 1996), the sale period of each apartment of this case determined five years after the first occupancy designation period (Article 12 of the Standard Contract Terms). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 12835, Dec. 26, 2002>

D. However, upon the lapse of about two to three years from the occupancy, some of the grounds, such as the outer roads, landscaping portion, etc. of the apartment complex of the instant two complex, arose. Accordingly, the residents of the two complex Amart, including the Defendants, demanded the Plaintiff to take measures when requesting the repair of defects, and the Plaintiff completed the ground reinforcement work from May 18, 2002 to December 16, 2002.

E. As the period of the lease contract expires due to the expiration of five years from the date of the first occupancy of the apartment complex of this case, the Plaintiff entered into a conversion to sale in lots in accordance with the Rental Housing Act. (3) On June 2003, the Plaintiff entered the sale in lots with the lessee's representative meeting (this agreement shall be signed and sealed by attending the meeting of the Defendants** the chairperson of this case*, 7 representative of the 201 to 207 representative, the auditor, the general affairs, etc. in addition to the Defendants). (1) before the conversion to sale in lots, the apartment ground of this case of this case and the entire structure of the building (7 buildings) shall be the subject of safety diagnosis and submit the results of the safety diagnosis. (2) In the case of securing the safety and use of the structure of the apartment complex of this case, the Plaintiff shall make the sale in lots pursuant to the Rental Housing Act to enter into the sale in lots for sale in lots for 5 years and to enter into the sale in lots for sale in lots with the whole roof of this case (2).

바. 그 후 원고는 2003. 8. 경 2단지 임차인 대표자회의 회장 이** 과 부녀회장 윤 ** 으로부터 알루미늄 샷시 시공업체로 주식회사 우신 알루미늄을 추천받아 위 업체를 통 하여 공사비 약 2억 5천만 원 상당의 복도 샤시 공사를 마친 다음, 임차인 대표자회의 로부터 감정평가법인을 선정 받아 2003. 11. 11. 분양전환 가격을 결정하였다.

G. On January 26, 2004, the Plaintiff announced that a lessee, including the Defendants, who had preferential ownership, should file an application for conversion for sale in lots from January 26, 2004 to March 31 of the same year, should file an application for conversion for sale in lots, since the Plaintiff started the conversion for sale in lots from January 26, 2004 to the lessee who has been granted preferential ownership (the foregoing notice states that a person who does not receive conversion for sale in lots by the designated date must leave the date

H. However, the Defendants did not express their intent to purchase them within the said period.

I. Meanwhile, up to February 2005, about 115 households among the 587 households of apartment complexes of this case were converted to sale in lots.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, each of the instant lease contracts has expired, and the defendant has terminated by March 31, 2004, which was the deadline for filing an application for conversion for sale in lots for each of the instant apartment buildings. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are obligated to order the plaintiff to each of the instant apartment complexes.

3. Determination on the assertion for invalidation of conversion for sale in lots by the Defendants

The Defendants, despite having to calculate an appropriate pre-sale conversion price pursuant to the Rental Housing Act, set the pre-sale conversion price of each apartment of this case excessively high. Despite the structural safety defect of the apartment of this case, the Defendants, including the Defendants, who demanded a pre-detailed safety inspection, neglected their demands. In fact, the Plaintiff violated the agreement to conduct a precise safety inspection with tenants, including the Defendants, but did so. The Plaintiff asserted that the pre-sale conversion procedure of each apartment of this case is invalid as it infringes the Defendants’ preferential right to sell, and thus, it is invalid as it is when there is a valid procedure for pre-sale conversion.

Therefore, the Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 4629, Dec. 27, 1993) completely amended the Rental Housing Act, and its legislative purpose is to promote the construction of rental houses by the public who did not solve the previous Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act, and to promote the protection of homeless lessee households, and to promote the protection of the right to preferential sale of rental houses by creditors, as prescribed by Article 15 of the Rental Housing Act, in the conversion of rental housing into parcelling-out, the tenant's right to preferential sale of rental housing is the position or qualification to select the other party to sell the rental housing in preference to the third party, and its choice should be guaranteed to the creditor, who is the tenant, in light of the purport of the Rental Housing Act's entry into law. Therefore, in the conversion of rental housing into parcelling-out, the lessor's right to preferential sale of rental housing under Article 15 of the Rental Housing Act was set excessively high in the conversion price of rental housing and thus, the lessor's right to preferential sale of rental housing is virtually deprived (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36365, etc.).

Therefore, as to whether the pre-sale conversion price of each apartment of this case was set excessively high to the extent that the Defendants’ preferential right to sell the apartment of this case was actually deprived, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff set excessively high pre-sale conversion price of each apartment of this case as alleged by the Defendants, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 5-10, No. 98 through No. 100, No. 7, and No. 8, the Plaintiff set the pre-sale conversion price of each apartment of this case at the time of conversion for sale in accordance with [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act at the time of conversion for sale in accordance with the calculation standards for the pre-sale conversion for publicly constructed rental house under [Attachment Table 1] related to Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act at the time of conversion for sale in lots. (The standard construction cost at the time of conversion for sale in lots + at the time of the announcement of tenant recruitment + interest on the housing site cost at the time of the first tenant recruitment + self-interest interest on construction cost at the time of the first tenant recruitment + the average value of the appraised value (16:32,11,00, 200 square meters: 40,182,000 won).

Next, the defendants asserted that the apartment complex of this case only has a fatal defect in structural safety, and that the plaintiff violated the provisions of this case with the intention of conducting a close safety inspection in advance. The plaintiff asserted that the apartment complex of this case did not contain any anything about structural safety in the apartment complex of this case, and that the agreement of this case was invalidated as the second agreement thereafter.

Therefore, the agreement of this case between the parties on June 2003 that the plaintiff agreed to provide a close diagnosis prior to the conversion for sale in lots is as seen above. According to the statement in Gap evidence 5-14, 25, 26, 26, 34, 35, 98, and 99, the ground of apartment complex of this case is relatively weak than the ground of apartment complex of this case.

However, according to the above facts, Gap evidence 5-6 to 9, 19-24, 27 through 3, 56, Eul evidence 6-1, 7-2, and Eul evidence 10, the agreement of this case was not established as stated above, but it was planned that the plaintiff will conduct a precise safety inspection as alleged by the plaintiff's own safety inspection. The plaintiff's agreement of this case 1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-1-2-2-3-2-3-2-2-1-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-4-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7

In addition, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the lessee, including the Defendants, was able to conduct a safety inspection on the Plaintiff’s own pursuant to Article 3 of the Agreement, since the Plaintiff completed the construction of the additional facilities agreed upon in the agreement by the recommendation of the representative of the lessee of the second complex after the above oral agreement. Furthermore, after the public announcement of the sale of the apartment complex in this case, the Plaintiff raised questions about the structural safety of some lessees after the public announcement of the sale of the apartment complex in this case. Since around June 4, 2004, the Plaintiff conducted an inspection on whether it is necessary to conduct a precise safety inspection on the heating phenomenon of underground parking lots and other safety inspections and structural safety through the National Safety Technology Institute for about one month from around June 4, 204, and as a result, there was no structural problem of the entire apartment complex, but there was only 0.3mmy phenomenon of the entire apartment complex in the underground parking lot, and there was no structural defect in the apartment complex to the extent that it did not have any structural defect to the extent that it could not have been found any defect in the above.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants infringed the Defendants’ preferential right to share because the Plaintiff had converted the ownership of the leased deposit to sale in lots without due process of safety inspection is without merit. 4. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion of simultaneous performance of the refund of the leased deposit

The defendants are not able to order each apartment of this case before the plaintiff was refunded the remainder of the lease deposit with the exception of the delinquency in arrears from each of the lease deposit of this case.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are obligated to return the overdue rent, management fee, and unfair profit equivalent to the rent from the expiration of the lease term to the time of ordering each apartment of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to refund the defendants the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting the above overdue rent, management fee, and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the above overdue rent, management fee, and the rent, and the plaintiff's obligation to return the remainder of the lease deposit is in the simultaneous performance relationship. As of October 31, 2006, the remaining lease deposit after deducting the defendants' overdue rent, management fee, and the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the above mentioned above shall be acknowledged by considering the purport of the argument in the attached Form. Thus, the defendants are obligated to receive from the plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting the amount equivalent to the remaining rent, management fee, and the rent from each of the above apartment of this case from the current status of the lease deposit to November 1, 206 to each of the apartment of this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, since the Defendants continued to reside in each apartment of this case with the termination of each of the instant lease agreements and without being converted for sale in lots, the Defendants had no intention to pay the Plaintiff the amount of illegal residence compensation equivalent to twice the agreed rent pursuant to Article 8 of the Special Conditions Concerning the Contract, and therefore, they should deduct the amount of illegal residence compensation from the lease deposit instead of the difference.

Therefore, according to the statement No. 2-1 to No. 7 of this case, it is reasonable to view that the above provision on compensation for non-legal residence in this case does not apply to this case, in light of the following circumstances: although compensation for illegal residence is provided for in Article 8 of the contract special terms and conditions of this case, it is recognized that compensation for illegal residence is limited to the case of termination of lease due to cancellation or termination of the contract, and there is dispute between the parties as to the validity of the procedure for conversion for sale in lots of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Then, * Defendant 1: from 1,830,70 Won to 1,00, 206, to 128,80 won per month from 206 to 1,00, the remaining amount by [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] shall be paid at the same time, and * [Attachment 934,020 to 6] [1] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] shall be deducted from 80 [Attachment 1] to 6] [1] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 2] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 80] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 8] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] [1] [Attachment 1] [2] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 1] [1] [1] [2] [Attachment 1] [1] [25] [Attachment 1] [1] [1] [25] [Attachment 3] [1] [1] [1] [1] [25].