Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around December 20, 2013, issued a corrective order to again implement the above election and submit the result thereof by December 16, 2013, he/she again invalidated the registration of his/her candidate and re-election, even though he/she was ordered to submit the result thereof by December 16, 2013, for the following reasons: (a) the registration of the candidate for the resident of the above apartment registered as the candidate for the election of the representative of each apartment building on November 27, 2013; and (b) on December 2, 2013 and December 11, 2013, the above invalidation disposition by the Simsan market on two occasions does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 50(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the orders of the head of local government under the Housing Act.

2. In a case where a person who received a corrective order from an administrative agency pursuant to Article 91 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405 of Feb. 3, 2009; hereinafter “Act”) violates it, the corrective order must be lawful in order to punish him/her pursuant to Article 98 subparag. 11 of the Act, and as long as the corrective order is deemed illegal, the violation of Article 98 subparag. 11 of the Act cannot be established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3918 Decided July 13, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do824 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). However, Article 91 of the Housing Act provides that "the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the head of a local government may order the suspension of construction, restoration to the original state, or other necessary measures where a project proprietor or an occupant, user, managing body, member of a council of occupants' representatives or a remodelling housing association violates this Act or any order or disposition under this Act." Thus, the defendant, the chairman of an election management committee, is the above.