[2] The case holding that since the conversion plan submitted by the rental business operator of rental housing with the intent to avoid the application of the current Rental Housing Act that recognized the right to request the tenant to conversion for sale in lots is unlawful, the administrative agency's return of such documents and disposition of approval for conversion

[2] The case holding that it is lawful for an administrative agency to return the documents and to grant approval for conversion for sale to lessee as long as the business entity failed to duly supplement the documents despite the administrative agency's repeated request for supplementation, on the ground that the conversion for sale to rental housing submitted by the rental business entity with the intention to avoid the application of the current Rental Housing Act that recognized the right to request conversion to lessee does not explicitly state the conversion for sale to rental housing, and there is no material to specify the conversion for sale to rental housing, and there is no illegality in the calculation basis of

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant;

According to the records, the following facts are substantiated.

(a) Submission of an applicant's plan for conversion for sale in lots and disposition of return by the respondent;

(1) The applicant is a rental business operator under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8966, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”), and received an application for sale from lessees from the 5th to the 10th day of the same month, when he leased a total of 90 households of the rental apartment of 100 rental houses located in Daegu Northern-dong 1079, Daegu Northern-dong 1079 (hereinafter “instant rental apartment”).

(2) In order to calculate the pre-sale conversion price, the applicant requested the respondent to select an appraisal agency on March 19, 2007. On May 7, 2007, the respondent separately selected the appraisal corporation recommended by the lessee and the appraisal corporation recommended by the applicant.

After that, the applicant has failed to comply with the Respondent's demand for appraisal, and requested an appraisal to the 2nd appraisal corporation of the above 2th appraisal on June 29, 2007 according to the Respondent's demand for appraisal. The above appraisal corporation appraised the conversion price of the leased apartment of this case at the time of July 5, 2007 (the date when the applicant decided to sell the leased apartment of this case) and thereafter notified the applicant and lessee of the results of the above appraisal (the above appraisal corporation sent the above appraisal document to the applicant on August 29, 2007, and the applicant received the above document on the 31st of the same month, but did not pay fees on the ground that the appraisal amount was lowered, and the above appraisal corporation returned the above appraisal document on September 3, 2007).

(3) According to the appraisal results of each appraisal corporation as above, there was a difference between 110% and 110% (in case of 23 square meters, a difference between 138% and 149% in case of 30 square meters). However, the applicant filed a civil petition by tenants because he did not disclose the appraisal amount at all and did not follow the subsequent procedures, such as a request for revaluation or submission of a conversion plan for conversion for sale. The respondent urged the applicant to immediately implement the subsequent procedures for conversion for sale from August 8, 2007, such as requesting the disclosure and re-evaluation of the appraisal amount, submission of a conversion plan for sale for sale in lots, etc., but the applicant failed to comply with

(4) During that period, the applicant submitted a conversion plan to the respondent, who is the administrative agency in charge of the rental apartment in this case, on June 2008, pursuant to Article 15(1) and (2) of the former Rental Housing Act and Article 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 19, Jun. 20, 2008). The appraisal of the appraisal corporation submitted a conversion plan as of June 2008 to the respondent, who is the administrative agency in charge of the rental apartment in this case, for the reason that there is a need to be a difference between 110% and 110% of the appraisal value of the appraisal corporation, and did not specify the amount and did not request the respondent to re-elect the appraisal corporation's conversion plan.

(5) In addition, the applicant submitted the copy of the appraisal report with the omission of the official seal of the current appraisal corporation and the original appraisal report of the current appraisal corporation attached to the pre-sale conversion plan under Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act to be attached to the said pre-sale conversion plan.

On June 19, 2008, the respondent ordered the applicant to supplement up to June 30, 2008 with the content that "the copy of the appraisal report of the Gao appraisal corporation attached to the plan for sale conversion is likely to cause a civil petition because the fairness and reliability are not secured." Furthermore, on June 23, 2008, the respondent requested confirmation of the authenticity of the copy of the said appraisal report with the seal omitted from the official seal to the Gao appraisal corporation on June 26, 2008, and the copy of the appraisal report submitted by the applicant is not effective as the appraisal report.

(6) After that, on June 30, 2008, the applicant entered the “original comparison” on the copy of the above appraisal report and submitted it to the respondent. On July 1, 2008, the respondent issued an order to supplement the content that “The applicant returned the appraisal report itself without paying the fee, and the appraisal report is not a copy but a copy of the said appraisal report, and thus, the applicant has no validity.” On July 10, 2008, the Claimant confirmed that the difference between the appraised value and the appraised value of the appraisal corporation of the same country exceeds 110%, and the lessee who recommended the appraisal report of the Adodon appraisal corporation also notified the Respondent that “The appraisal report and the appraised value of the original is in existence after the appraisal is actually conducted.”

(7) On July 16, 2008, the respondent notified the applicant of the appraisal report that the copy of the appraisal report which is not the original has no validity of the appraisal report, and the applicant’s plan for conversion for sale in lots pursuant to Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act was not supplemented, but the applicant’s plan for conversion for sale in lots was not supplemented, and the amended Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8966, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”) notified the applicant to take procedures for conversion in lots (hereinafter “instant return disposition”).

(8) The applicant filed a lawsuit against the respondent and the North Korean district court 2008Guhap2523 (Seoul District Court 2008Guhap2523) on March 25, 2009, but was sentenced to a judgment against the above court on March 25, 2009, and the applicant appealed against this and is currently pending in the appeal court.

(b) Disposition of approving conversion of this case into lots on the council of lessees;

(1) On the other hand, on July 22, 2008, after the instant return disposition, the respondent notified the applicant and the council of lessees' representatives that the applicant and the council of lessees should again select an appraisal corporation on the condition that the applicant bear expenses for approval for conversion for sale in lots pursuant to Article 21 (9) of the current Rental Housing Act, and thus, the respondent requested the applicant to select an appraisal corporation again on August 5, 2008, but the applicant did not comply therewith.

(2) On the other hand, from the council of lessees' representatives of the rental apartment of this case, an application for approval of conversion for sale in lots under Article 21 (5) of the current Rental Housing Act was filed, and the respondent selected the Korea Appraisal Board and Sam Chang Chang-gu Seoul Appraisal Board as an appraisal agency on September 3, 2008, and the said appraisal agency completed the appraisal, the respondent notified the applicant of the result of the appraisal on September 24, 2008.

(3) However, on May 14, 2009, the applicant filed an objection against the respondent on the ground that the above appraisal result was unfair appraisal due to the lessee’s unfair pressure, but the respondent did not accept the above appraisal result on the ground that the appraisal was conducted fairly through its own investigation. The applicant approved the application for conversion for conversion for sale in lots by the council of lessees on May 27, 2009, after setting the conversion price according to the above appraisal and assessment (hereinafter “instant disposition of approval for conversion for sale in lots”).

2. Applicant's assertion

For the following reasons, the applicant asserts that the instant disposition of approval for conversion for sale in lots in lots should be suspended as well as that there is an urgent need to prevent irrecoverable damage.

A. Illegality of the instant return disposition

The rejection disposition of this case, which rejected the applicant's legitimate plan for conversion for sale in lots, is unlawful for the following reasons. Thus, the former Rental Housing Act is applied to conversion for sale in lots of the rental apartment in this case according to the transitional measure under Article 3 of the Addenda of the current Rental Housing Act, and accordingly, the disposition of this case, which approved the lessee's application

(1) As to the fact that the appraisal report is a copy

In full view of the following: (a) there is no provision stating the basis for calculation of pre-sale conversion conversion price to the former Rental Housing Act and other relevant statutes; and (b) there is no formal defect such as signature and seal of the appraiser and seal of the representative of the appraisal corporation as well as the copy attached to the attached copy because the attached copy is reproduced by mechanical method; and (c) Dododon appraisal corporation is a certified public appraisal corporation selected at the tenant’s request and does not have the status to make the original demand; and (d) it is sufficiently confirmed the content of the appraisal report even if it is based on the copy of the appraisal report in the name of the former appraisal corporation attached to the said plan; (b) the respondent was already aware of the content thereof; and (c) the attached appraisal report is not submitted as the basis for calculation of pre-sale conversion price, but is merely attached to the materials proving the necessity of re-evaluation. In full view of the foregoing,

(2) Failure to indicate the pre-sale conversion price

The plan for conversion for sale in lots was submitted by the applicant in accordance with the Respondent's official document (No. 26 of May 29, 2008). According to the above official document, the Respondent's submission of a plan for sale in lots by June 20, 2008 to make the evaluation of re-evaluation possible, and the Respondent's submission of a plan for sale in lots by June 20, 2008 and demanded that the pre-sale be determined after re-evaluation. As such, returning the plan on sale in lots on the ground that the pre-sale price was not indicated, it is unlawful in violation of the good faith.

(3) Whether the return authority exists

The term "civil petition affairs" or "civil petition documents" under the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, which the respondent has no provision that it is possible to return a plan for conversion for sale in lots, and the term "civil petition affairs" or "civil petition documents" means documents stating the affairs or matters related to the request of administrative agencies to take specific actions, such as disposition. The conversion plan of conversion for sale in lots in this case is not a document requiring specific actions, but a conversion for sale in lots without the approval or approval of the respondent. In addition, in order to return civil petition documents, it shall not be deemed as civil petition documents because the appraisal report has been submitted as a copy which is not the original copy. Rather, it shall not be deemed as a defect of civil petition documents because the appraisal report was submitted as a copy which is not the original copy, and rather, the respondent's request of the applicant for the submission of the original copy of appraisal report is unlawful because it requires unnecessary documents prohibited

Therefore, the rejection disposition of this case is illegal as it was conducted without the authority of law.

B. Illegality of calculating the pre-sale conversion price of the instant case

The respondent selected an appraisal corporation based on the application for approval for conversion of ownership in the council of lessees, and neglected to exercise pressure on the appraisal corporation of the lessees who want to select a branch office in the Daegu area and purchase the leased apartment of this case, and eventually, the appraised value of the leased apartment of this case was judged unfairly low price. Although the respondent raised an objection to the above appraisal result pursuant to Article 21(9) of the current Rental Housing Act, the respondent was unfairly dismissed, so the disposition for approval for conversion of ownership in this case, which calculated the conversion price by the illegal appraisal procedure, is also unlawful.

(c) Necessity of suspending its validity;

Although the disposition of this case against the applicant is unlawful and the lawsuit against this is pending at the court, the respondent has issued approval for the application for conversion of the unit price applied for by the council of lessees, according to the current Rental Housing Act, where the applicant who is a rental business operator after the tenant's approval for conversion of unit price after the tenant's approval for conversion of unit price does not comply with the conversion of unit price for six months or more, the tenant may claim the sale of the unit price for conversion approved by the tenant. Thus, where the validity of the approval for conversion of unit price for sale of this case is maintained, the applicant cannot respond to the tenant's request for sale, and thus, it is likely that the lessee will suffer losses difficult to recover even if he/she won the contract within the family (it is not possible to recover due to

3. Determination

A. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Possibility of winning the case on the merits

(1) In a case seeking the suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition, the validity of the administrative disposition itself is not determined in principle, since it is not determined through a deliberation in the judgment on the merits, and it is subject to the existence or absence of the requirement under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act as to whether to suspend the validity of the administrative disposition, but it is contrary to the purport of the system to recognize the suspension of the validity of the disposition even though there is no possibility of revocation of the disposition in the merits lawsuit. Thus, if it is obvious that the petitioner's request on the merits itself has no reason, the suspension of the validity of the administrative disposition cannot be ordered (see Supreme Court Order 94Du23, Oct. 11, 1994,

(2) Whether the submission of the plan for conversion to sale in this case is lawful

(A) The procedures for selling the instant rental apartment in lots under the former Rental Housing Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (see, e.g., the relevant statutes) are as follows.

(1) When a rental business operator intends to preferentially convert a publicly constructed rental house after the lapse of a mandatory lease period, he/she shall submit a plan for conversion of rental house to which the pre-sale conversion price is specified to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu along with documents supporting the calculation of the pre-sale conversion price: Provided, That where the announcement of recruitment of tenants or lease agreement expressly states the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price, or where agreement is reached on at least 2/3 of tenants

(2) Where a mandatory lease period is five years, the unit price converted for sale shall be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of the unit price of construction and the appraised value, and the appraised value shall be the arithmetic mean of the appraised value of the relevant house appraised by two appraisal corporations on the basis of the date determined to sell.

(3) A rental business operator shall request the head of a Si/Gun/Gu to appoint an appraisal business operator to calculate the pre-sale conversion price before submitting a plan for the conversion of rental housing units, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in receipt of such request shall select two appraisal corporations after hearing opinions of rental business operators and lessees within 30 days from the date of receipt of such request. On the other hand, expenses incurred in appraisal

(4) Where the highest appraised value exceeds 110% of the lowest appraised value, the appraised value shall be revaluated.

(5) The head of a Si/Gun/Gu may recommend rental business operators and lessees to prepare for sale in lots at least six months before the expiration of the mandatory rental period, in consideration of the details of the announcement of invitation of residents and report on the terms

(6) Where the head of a Si/Gun/Gu deems it necessary to supplement or revise a plan for conversion for sale in lots submitted by a rental business operator as above, he/she may request supplementation or revision thereof within ten days from the date of receipt of such plan.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the contents of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, a rental business operator should first complete an appraisal procedure for calculating the pre-sale conversion price before submitting a pre-sale conversion plan, and then specify the pre-sale conversion price based on the appraised value and specify the pre-sale conversion price in the pre-sale conversion plan. As such, the aforementioned pre-sale conversion plan is submitted to the competent agency along with the documents on the basis of calculation of the pre-sale conversion price, i.e., appraisal documents, etc.,

However, in this case, the appraisal and assessment for calculating the pre-sale conversion price of the leased apartment was completed on July 10, 207, and the applicant was aware that the highest appraised value exceeds 110% of the minimum appraised value as a result of the appraisal, but the appraisal and assessment by the appraisal appraisal corporation, which was conducted without disclosing the appraised value under the relevant laws and regulations, has been arbitrarily returned without paying the fees for the reason that the appraised value was too low. (ii) The applicant failed to comply with the request for the subsequent implementation of the pre-sale conversion procedure, such as the disclosure and revaluation of the renewed appraised value by the respondent of the competent agency, submission of the pre-sale conversion plan, and the submission of the pre-sale conversion plan, and the submission of the pre-sale conversion price, and the applicant did not appear to be subject to the pre-sale conversion price under the current Rental Housing Act’s current Rental Housing Act’s current Rental Housing Act’s current Rental Housing Act’s pre-sale conversion conversion plan and the pre-sale conversion price plan, which were not applied to the pre-sale conversion conversion price.

On the other hand, the applicant submitted the conversion plan of this case pursuant to the official document dated May 29, 2008 (Evidence A No. 26 of the respondent's order to submit the conversion plan by June 20, 2008. The respondent voluntarily submitted the conversion plan for sale in lots and demanded that the conversion price be determined after re-evaluation. Thus, the rejection of the plan on the ground that the conversion price for sale in lots was not a complete conversion without indicating the conversion price for sale in lots is unlawful in violation of the good faith principle. However, the above official document should be interpreted to the purport that the applicant's refusal of the submission of the appraisal report is against the good faith principle. The applicant also received the same meaning in light of the respondent's demand to submit the conversion plan for sale in lots by June 20, 2008. Even if the contents of the above official statement can be interpreted as asserted by the applicant, the applicant's rejection of the plan for sale in lots cannot be seen as violating the good faith principle.

If so, the conversion price for sale in this case is not specified and it is illegal because there is no material to specify the conversion price for sale in this case.

(C) Furthermore, whether a copy of the appraisal statement attached to the instant plan for conversion for sale in lots is the basis for calculating the conversion price for sale in lots required by relevant statutes should also be deemed as additional.

In light of the above, the Respondent is not only a copy of the appraisal report attached to the applicant as the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price, but also a copy of the appraisal report attached to the Gadodo appraisal appraisal corporation’s official seal is not affixed with the applicant’s seal. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the Respondent is the existence or authenticity of the original appraisal report attached to the applicant. ② The Respondent requested confirmation of the authenticity of the appraisal report directly submitted by the Gado appraisal corporation, but it is notified that the appraisal report submitted by the Gado appraisal corporation by the Gado appraisal corporation was not effective as the appraisal report. ③ The Applicant who did not have the original copy upon the Respondent’s request for supplement, submitted the copy stating “the Gado comparison of the original” on the copy of the above appraisal report, it is difficult to recognize that the Gado appraisal corporation’s existence of the original copy and its external effect is the same as the original, or that the above copy is not identical with the original and its authenticity, final and objective contents, and thus, the Respondent cannot be seen as the content or copy of the appraisal report.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the copy of the appraisal report as the “documents based on the calculation of the sale conversion price” under Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act.

(D) Next, as seen earlier, a rental business operator intends to preferentially convert a public rental housing unit into lots, with the list of lessees who do not wish to purchase the public rental housing unit in a certain form, and documents which prove that they do not wish to purchase the public rental housing unit, and documents which prove that they do not wish to purchase the public rental housing unit. Upon receipt of such plan, an administrative agency may require supplementation or revision within a certain period of time if deemed necessary. As such, the former Rental Housing Act imposes an obligation to submit a plan for conversion of rental housing unit to an administrative agency which intends to preferentially purchase the public rental housing unit and related documents, and the administrative agency which submitted the plan for conversion of rental housing unit to purchase the public rental housing unit shall request supplementation or correction of the plan within a certain period of time after examining whether the applicant satisfies the requirements under Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and the administrative agency which submitted the plan for conversion of rental housing unit to purchase the housing unit within a certain period of time shall submit the report within the period of time to the administrative agency without delay. Accordingly, the administrative agency's submission of the above plan for conversion of civil petition documents shall be rejected without delay.

(E) Therefore, the instant plan for conversion for sale in lots is unlawful because it does not explicitly state the conversion price for sale in lots, and there is no material to specify it, and it is also unlawful since there is a defect in the calculation basis of the conversion price for sale in lots required by the relevant statutes as attached documents, and it is legitimate for the respondent to return the plan as long as the applicant did not lawfully supplement it despite the respondent's repeated request

Therefore, this part of the claimant's assertion that the former Rental Housing Act shall apply to the conversion of the lease apartment of this case into parcelling-out on the premise that the submission of the conversion plan of this case is lawful is not justified.

(3) As to the legitimacy of calculating the instant pre-sale conversion price

In full view of all the supporting materials submitted by the applicant, the respondent selected an appraisal institution under the influence of the lessee by unfairly accepting the demand of the council of lessees when the respondent selects the appraisal corporation according to the application for approval of conversion of the council of lessees to a sale in lots, or the appraisal institution conducts an unfair appraisal other than the actual one by pressure of the lessee and the respondent is not sufficient to recognize that the latter has neglected this, and there is no other supporting materials to prove that the request for re-appraisal by the applicant has been dismissed.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the claimant's assertion as it is without merit.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Thus, the approval of the conversion for sale in lots in this case cannot be seen as illegal because it does not seem to be any mother or illegal. Thus, the application of this case seeking the suspension of validity of the above disposition in this case constitutes a case where it is evident that the claim

C. Whether it is necessary to prevent the occurrence of “irreparable damages”

"A loss difficult to recover", which is a requirement for suspension of execution under Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, means a loss that cannot be compensated in money, unless there are special circumstances. It refers to a loss that is not possible to compensate in money, which refers to a loss that is tangible or intangible, where the party against whom an administrative disposition was taken cannot with reference or where it is considerably difficult to check for reference, or where it is considerably difficult to check for reference. Whether there is "emergency necessary to prevent irrecoverable damage from being caused by the disposition, etc. or the enforcement or the continuation of the procedure" shall be determined specifically and individually by taking into account the nature, mode and contents of the disposition, the nature, content and degree of the damage suffered by the other party to the disposition, the method of restitution and monetary compensation, and the degree of success in the claims on the merits (see Supreme Court Order 2003Ma41, May 12, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, the burden of proof on the applicant's side (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 290Da294, Dec.).

With respect to the instant case, even if the applicant’s approval disposition of the conversion to parcelling-out in accordance with the plan for the conversion to parcelling-out submitted by the applicant is revoked as the applicant seeks in the instant lawsuit, this is only a difference in the conversion to parcelling-out according to the appraisal amount, and thus, it shall be deemed as a loss capable of monetary compensation. On the other hand, with regard to the fact that it is difficult to recover actual losses due to the lessee’s disposal, bankruptcy, property concealment, etc. after the lessee’s determination of the sale contract by the lessee’s request for sale after the lessee’s determination of the sale contract by the lessee’s request for sale, it is not sufficient to recognize that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the damage is difficult to recover, and even if all other supporting materials submitted by the applicant, it is insufficient to recognize that the approval disposition of conversion

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's petition of this case shall be dismissed as it appears to be one copy or there is no reason, and the decision of the first instance is just in conclusion. Therefore, the petitioner's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Choi Choi-sik (Presiding Judge)