[2] The meaning of "Lessee" under Article 15 (1) of the former Rental Housing Act, which has a preferential right to sell a rental house for sale in lots, and whether the term "contractors within a substantial meaning" is also included (negative)

[2] "Lessee" under Article 15 (1) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7598, Jul. 13, 2005) means a lessee as a party to a lease agreement with a rental business operator in accordance with the requirements and procedures prescribed by the Act. Unlike the above, the amendment and expansion of a lease agreement includes a "actual tenant" in consideration of the party's contractual purpose, economic burden, actual residence, etc., is contrary to the legal interpretation principles and standards, and thus, cannot be accepted.

1. As a matter of principle, since the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, it is necessary to clarify the standard meaning of the law in its interpretation so as to ensure objective validity, and maintain consistency as much as possible with all the people so as not to undermine legal stability. In addition, since positive law is established in consideration of universal and typical matters, it is also required to interpret that the law has a concrete validity so that it can be the most reasonable solution for specific matters in applying the law in various cases that occur in society reality. In short, the goal of statutory interpretation should be to find a concrete feasibility within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. In addition, the purpose and purpose of the law should be faithfully interpreted in the ordinary meaning of the language used in the law. Furthermore, the systematic and logical interpretation method that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, the history of its enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, relations with other statutes, etc. should be additionally mobilized to meet the request for statutory interpretation of this Act.

On the other hand, if the text of the law itself consists of relatively clear concepts, it is no longer necessary or limited to use any other interpretation method. Even if it is intended to interpret the term used in any provision of the law differently from the ordinary meaning of the text in light of the legislative intent and purpose of the law, it cannot disregard the harmonization between other provisions in the law and the systematic relationship with other laws or the entire legal system. Thus, there is a certain limit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence of employment and determined as follows. In other words, since the Rental Housing Act was established for the public interest purpose to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure the stability of national housing life, the above legislative purpose should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying the above Act, and Article 15(1) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7598, Jul. 13, 2005; hereinafter the same) (the first instance court stated that "Article 15(1)1 of the Rental Housing Act" is "Article 15(1) of the former Rental Housing Act," but this is a newly established provision of the amended Act as of July 13, 2005 and its Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19051, Sept. 16, 2005) and Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act provides that the above provision should be sufficiently considered in determining whether a lessee is a lessee's right to sell housing, and its purpose.

In addition, regarding the specific issues of this case, the purpose of the lease of this case was to seek a residential space of Defendant 2, and the person who decided to reside in the leased rental house was Defendant 2, and the funds paid as security deposit was also that of Defendant 2. However, since Defendant 2 was in imminent circumstances that he could not leave the house due to his wife's disease, he directly sought the office of the Plaintiff Corporation and requested Defendant 1, his father, who was born out without entering into the lease contract under his name, to enter into the lease contract. Since Defendant 1 did not have accurate knowledge and information about the legal rights, he concluded the lease contract in the name of his father (Defendant 2) rather than his father's name during the contract execution process. Defendant 2 did not so to obtain any profit or avoid legal regulation, Defendant 2 did not have the ability to obtain any economic ability of the aged aged 75 years old.

Then, in light of the policy goal that the Rental Housing Act intends to achieve, the above Act’s intended plan and the scope of protection, etc., the meaning of “Lessee” under Article 15(1) of the Rental Housing Act is not interpreted from a literal and legal standpoint, but rather, in this case where special circumstances exist as seen above, Defendant 2, who is regarded as a lessee under the social common sense in terms of the purpose of a lease agreement, financial burden and actual resident, has the right to preferentially sell the rental house of this case, and thus, Defendant 2 was entitled to preferentially sell the rental house of this case on the ground that the term of the lease agreement expires.

3. However, in light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

The concept of “Lessee” used in Article 15(1) of the Rental Housing Act and Article 9(2) of the Agreement Terms and Conditions of the instant lease agreement, which is at issue in this case, is a central concept that serves as the basis of the Rental Housing Act and the instant lease agreement, in order to promote the construction of rental houses by preferentially selling rental houses to tenants who meet specific qualifications, such as having to rent or use rental houses during the mandatory rental period, and to promote the stability of national housing life by preferentially selling rental houses to tenants who meet such requirements, upon the lapse of such period. Therefore, unless it is objectively and clearly construed, considerable confusion and interference may arise in performing the obligations and realizing rights

However, there is no special provision on the "Lessee" of the Rental Housing Act, and there is no provision to the effect that the court below includes the so-called "actual tenant" of the Rental Housing Act. However, Article 3 of the same Act provides that "the Housing Act and the Housing Lease Protection Act shall apply to matters not prescribed by this Act concerning the construction, supply, and management of rental housing," and there is no provision on the interpretation of the term "Lessee" in the Housing Lease Protection Act as well as the Housing Act, which provides special exceptions to the Civil Act concerning the lease of residential buildings (However, Article 3-2 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act includes a certain corporation in the lessee, and Article 9 provides that a person who is in a de facto marital relationship shall succeed to the rights and obligations of the deceased tenant in certain cases).

Ultimately, the term "Lessee" under the Rental Housing Act means the provision of the Civil Code, which is a general legal entity for the lease, and the meaning of "Lessee" that is ordinarily understood in the society. It is the most reasonable interpretation in light of the language and text to regard the term as referring to one of the parties to the lease contract as having the right to use and benefit from the object and at the same time having the right to use and benefit from the object of lease as stipulated in Article 618 of the Civil Code.

However, the term “a party to a lease” refers to a party to a lease contract under an agreement to use a rental house or pay a rent, and it is not the meaning of a person who actually uses or benefits from the object or actually contributes to the deposit, rent, etc. In light of the purport of other provisions of the Rental Housing Act. In other words, the Rental Housing Act provides that a lessee of a rental house shall not transfer the right of lease or sublet the rental house to any other person (Article 13), except in special cases (Article 12), and provides that a lessee of a rental house shall be subject to criminal punishment of a lessee of a rental house or a person who transfers or sublets the right of lease in violation of the Act by deceit or other wrongful means (Article 22). In addition, when a lease contract is concluded with respect to a rental house, a lessee and a lessee shall comply with the standard lease agreement including the matters prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes, and shall be subject to the direction and supervision of a lessee and a lessee, who violates the Act and subordinate statutes, and shall be subject to strict measures such as an order for the lease contract or restriction (Article 19).

Therefore, "Lessee" under the Rental Housing Act means a lessee who is a party to enter into a lease agreement under the Rental Housing Act and exercise his/her rights and perform his/her obligations under the Act. However, as stated in the judgment of the court below, expanding or interpreting the meaning of a lessee under the above Act in terms of the purpose, financial burden, or actual resident, such as actual resident, is ambiguous, first of all, the concept of "actual tenant" is ambiguous, and the interpretation is merely a variety of methods of using and benefiting from the situation of the lease agreement or the method of making profits from the lease. Such interpretation is contrary to the purpose and overall legal system of the Rental Housing Act, the general meaning of the terms of the Act, as well as the general meaning of the terms of the Act, and is contrary to the intention and trust of the lessor who is the other party to the lease agreement, and further, it is likely to cause confusion in the supply and management of rental housing under the Rental Housing Act.

In particular, Article 15 of the Rental Housing Act, which is at issue in this case, provides for preferential treatment, such as right to preferential sale, to those who meet specific qualifications, such as homeless persons, after the expiration of the mandatory rental period, among existing lessees. If the term “actual lessee” is interpreted as “actual lessee”, even if a lessee is selected as a lessee in accordance with the requirements and procedures prescribed by the Rental Housing Act and is not a lessee who entered into a lease contract, if there is a person who should be a lessee separately from the actual aspect, the lessee is recognized as a lessee and the right to preferential sale is granted to him/her, thereby going against the basic purpose of the Rental Housing Act. Furthermore, there is a concern that a lessee who entered into a lease contract may dissatise the purpose of the Rental Housing Act by various methods, such as taking occupancy of a relative or relative, who is a homeless, and purchase a rental house on the basis of such requirements, including the Rental Housing Act. This may result in serious harm to legal order and

On the other hand, the court below seems to have judged that the above request for legal stability should be withdrawn because of the concrete validity of the special circumstances in this case. However, it is not enough to go beyond the essence and principle of the above legal interpretation in order to resolve exceptional cases under special circumstances in a concrete and reasonable manner. Even though the issue of whether to solve the concrete feasibility is, if a single and exceptional interpretation is allowed beyond the essence and principle of the legal interpretation and the clear statement of securing the concrete validity in this case, it is difficult for the court to find out the doubt that at any time, a citizen who is not aware of the legal principles as to the above interpretation would not have a arbitrary trial by a judge rather than a trial by law. This would seriously undermine the trust of the court's trial, and it would seriously undermine legal stability by preventing all disputes from being resolved without bringing any dispute to the court. Article 15 (1) of the Rental Housing Act Article 15 (1) of the Rental Housing Act, and the above legal principles have the same purpose as above, even if it seeks to promote stability in the residential life of the citizens and to supply the rental housing to Defendant 2 and the end.

In conclusion, “Lessee” under Article 15(1) of the Rental Housing Act refers to a lessee as a party to a lease agreement with a rental business operator in accordance with the requirements and procedures prescribed by the aforementioned Act. On the other hand, the amendment and the extension to include a “actual lessee” in consideration of the contractual purpose, economic burden, actual residential situation, etc. of one of the parties to the lease agreement, is inconsistent with the aforementioned legal interpretation principles and standards, and thus, cannot be accepted.

4. Furthermore, the court below concluded a lease contract under the name of Defendant 1 on the ground that Defendant 1 entered into a lease contract in the process of concluding the instant lease contract on behalf of Defendant 2, and thus, it may be deemed that Defendant 2 constitutes a lessee as a party to the instant lease contract.

Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. Interpretation of an expression of intent constitutes a matter of interpretation of the party involved in the contract. Interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning given by the party to the act of expression, and in cases where a written document is prepared between the parties as a disposal document, the objective meaning given by the party to the act of expression according to the contents of the written document, regardless of the party’s internal intent, shall be reasonably construed regardless of the party’s internal intent. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear,

In light of the reasoning and records of the judgment below, the following facts are revealed: ① a person who entered into a lease contract with the Plaintiff is Defendant 1, and the lessee is also Defendant 1 under the lease contract; ② the lease contract of this case is likely to have been entered into as “an agent contract for a third party” as prescribed by the Rental Housing Act, and all necessary documents are presumed to have been met on the basis of Defendant 1; ③ Defendant 2, despite having requested Defendant 1 to enter into a lease contract for the purpose of raising his own residence, may not be deemed to have entered into the lease contract of this case, and it is difficult to believe that Defendant 1 appeared to have entered into the lease contract of this case under the name of Defendant 2 as evidence only because it was merely an electronic document issued by the Plaintiff 1, and rather, Defendant 1 appears to have entered into the lease contract of this case under the name of Defendant 1, regardless of the fact that Defendant 2 did not appear to have entered into the lease contract of this case.

Considering the above various circumstances in light of the legal principles as to the determination of the parties to the instant lease agreement, the lessee as the party to the instant lease agreement actually entered into the contract and also is the Defendant 1, who is indicated as the lessee even in the contract.

5. Nevertheless, the court below interpreted the meaning of a tenant under Article 15 (1) of the Rental Housing Act as a tenant with the same special and exceptional meaning as this case, and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that Defendant 2 constituted such tenant in the instant rental housing. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the concept of a tenant under the Rental Housing Act, the legal principles on the determination of a lessee in a lease agreement or the interpretation of a contract, the probative value of a disposal document, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

6. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)