[2] In a case where Gap corporation, a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act, issued a notice to the effect that "if Gap corporation did not file an application for priority sale conversion by the public notice date, it shall be deemed to waive the priority sale conversion, and it shall not be subject to preferential sale conversion," etc., the case holding that even if Eul et al. did not accept Gap's subscription, it does not constitute "the lessee does not accept the rental business operator's subscription for at least six months" under Article 21 (7) of the Rental Housing Act, even if Eul et al. did not accept Gap's subscription"

[2] In a case where Company A, a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act, obtained approval for conversion of the sale in lots for rental apartments, and then publicly announced several times the guidance for conversion of the sale in lots to the effect that “if Party B, etc., who has the right to conversion of the sale in lots, fails to file an application for conversion of the sale in lots by the public notice date, it shall be deemed to waive the conversion of the sale in lots, and then it shall not be subject to conversion of the sale in lots after the public notice date,” the case holding that the public notice of the notice, etc. by Company A constitutes an offer with the consent period, and the offering of the sale in lots for Company B, etc. is effective only within the period of conclusion of the contract for the first sale in lots set forth in the notice, etc., and even if Party B, etc. did not accept Party B’s subscription, it does not constitute “where Party B, etc. does not consent to a rental business operator’s subscription for

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same as the disposition (the plaintiffs and the appointed parties) changed the litigation in exchange for the case at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All the claims of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs (appointed parties) are dismissed.

(a) Lease relationship;

1) around September 16, 2002, the Jeju Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd.”) and the Jeju Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HA”) entered into a trust agreement with respect to the Jeju Industries, which was newly constructed on the ground of the JA-dong (number 1 omitted) and (number 2 omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18315, Mar. 17, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply), which falls under the publicly constructed rental housing under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18315, Mar. 17, 2004); and

2) On April 9, 2002, the K non-real estate trust applied for occupancy in the first-come first-come-served order with the approval of the public announcement of invitation of residents against the homeless head of the household residing in the leisure time. Accordingly, the plaintiffs (the non-party 1 died on December 23, 201 and Plaintiff 38,39,40, co-inheritors, took over the litigation procedures), the plaintiffs (appointed parties), and the appointed parties (the non-party 2 died on May 12, 201, and took over the litigation procedures) (the non-party 86,87,88, the co-inheritors, who were co-inheritors) applied for occupancy (the plaintiff, the designated parties (the parties), and the appointed parties together with the plaintiff, the designated parties). From April 2002 to April 25, 201, the plaintiffs entered the lease agreement into the lease agreement as to each of the "household units" in the attached Table No. 2015.25.

3) On August 29, 2007, the Defendant purchased the instant rental apartment from the K non-real estate trust, succeeded to the status as a rental business operator of the K non-real estate trust, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 30, 2007.

4) From December 2007, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the Plaintiffs, whose lease term expires, to extend the lease term.

(b) Approval for conversion of rental apartments into parcelling-out;

Around October 2010, the Defendant applied for approval for conversion for sale in lots for 1,392 units of the rental apartment of this case to the female Mayor. On October 12, 2010, the female mayor approved conversion for sale in lots for 1,15 units, including the Plaintiffs, among 1,392 units of the rental apartment of this case, on October 12, 2010 (hereinafter “approval for conversion for sale in lots”).

(1) One floor among 27 square meters: 68,342,00 won.

(2) 27 square datums: 71,672,00 won.

(3) One floor among 31 square meters: 81,917,000 won.

(4) 31 square layers: 82,593,00 won.

(5) 31st square layer: 84,447,00 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 2 through 6, 8 through 19, Eul's 1, 3 through 13 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

Article 21(1) of the Rental Housing Act provides, “Where a rental business operator sells a rental house in lots after the expiry of the mandatory rental period, he/she shall make a conversion into lots to any of the following lessees: 4. Where an occupant is selected on a first-come first-served basis, he/she shall do so until the conversion into lots.” The plaintiffs are selected as occupant of the relevant leased apartment among the rental apartment in this case on a first-come-served basis. The fact that the lessee of the relevant leased household at the time of approval for conversion into lots was the tenant of the relevant leased household at the time of the approval for conversion into lots, and that there was approval for conversion into lots for the rental apartment in this case for which the mandatory rental period has expired is recognized as above, and there

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiffs have the right to preferentially purchase the leased apartment of this case among the leased apartment of this case (hereinafter “right to preferential purchase conversion”) based on the pre-sale conversion price stipulated in the approval for the conversion for sale in this case pursuant to Article 21(1)4 of the Rental Housing Act, and thus, the Defendant, who succeeded to the status of the rental business entity for the leased apartment of this case, has the duty to express his/her consent to each subscription to purchase the leased apartment of this case as stated in the “sale price” column in the attached sales contract.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that since the plaintiffs did not file an application for conversion to parcelling-out within six months from the date of approval of conversion to parcelling-out in this case or the period of application set forth in the public notice of preferential conversion to parcelling-out, the right of preferential conversion to parcelling-out was entirely extinguished pursuant to Article 21(

Article 21(7) of the Rental Housing Act provides that "If a lessee fails to comply with conversion for sale for at least six months even after a rental business operator obtained approval for conversion for sale in lots under paragraph (4), the rental business operator may sell the relevant rental house to a third party as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, as a conversion conversion price."

However, the purpose of the Rental Housing Act is to stabilize the residential life of the people (Article 1), and the provisions of the Rental Housing Act on the right to preferential conversion of lessees is to ensure the tenant's preferential right to purchase rental housing in a stable manner. The Rental Housing Act provides for the procedures for the tenant's application for approval of conversion for sale in lots and provides for the tenant's approval of conversion for sale in lots, so if the rental business operator fails to faithfully carry out the conversion for sale in lots even after approval of conversion for sale in lots, the tenant can not be aware of the fact that approval of conversion for sale in lots is not provided. The above Rental Housing Act provides for the requirements for the tenant to sell the rental housing to a third party "if the tenant fails to comply with the conversion for sale in lots for at least six months" (Article 21 (7) of the Rental Housing Act, if the rental business operator intends to sell the rental housing to a third party, it is insufficient that the lessee has not applied for sale in lots within six months from the approval date of the conversion for sale in lots, and if the tenant fails to apply for sale in lots for 98 months or more after such approval.

According to the public health stand, Eul evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 14-1 through 4 as to the instant case, the defendant is entitled to first priority to file an application for conversion of sale from the female water market during the period of October 22, 2010 to November 6, 2010, and first priority to file an application for conversion of sale from 30-14 to 10-10-10-4 to 20-10-10-4 to 20-10-4, first priority to file an application for conversion of sale within the period of 14-10-4 to 20-15-4, second priority to file an application for conversion of sale from 10-14 to 20-14-10-3, second priority to first set the period of 14-1-2, 201-2, and second priority to sign an application for conversion of sale within the period of 14-15-3, 2011.

According to the above facts, even if the Defendant’s announcement of the above public notice or notice constitutes an offer for a sales contract against the Plaintiffs, such acceptance is invalid if it does not accept within the pre-sale contract period set forth in the offer, and such acceptance constitutes an offer with a fixed period of acceptance. Therefore, the Defendant’s offer is invalidated by the lapse of the pre-sale contract period set forth in the above public notice or notice.

Therefore, the Defendant’s offer for the sales contract to the Plaintiffs is effective only within the period of concluding the first sale contract as stipulated in the public notice or notice, and it is apparent that it does not reach six months even if the period of concluding the first sale contract was added up. Thus, even if the Plaintiffs did not accept the Defendant’s above offer, it does not constitute “where a lessee does not accept a rental business operator’s offer for at least six months” as stipulated in Article 21(7) of the Rental Housing Act. Even if the Defendant entered into a sales contract with a lessee other than the Plaintiffs even if the period of concluding the first sale contract as stipulated in the public notice or notice, even if the Defendant entered into the sales contract with a lessee other than the Plaintiffs, it is merely a lessee’s new offer and consent, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s offer to the Plaintiffs remains effective for at

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the right of preferential purchase by the plaintiffs was extinguished based on Article 21 (7) of the Rental Housing Act is without merit without examining any other points.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with because the plaintiff's lease apartment of this case already concluded a sales contract with a third party for the lease apartment of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer accordingly.

However, as seen above, if a rental business operator sells a rental house before the expiration of the period for which a lessee is entitled to exercise a preferential right of sale in violation of Article 21(1) and (7) of the Rental Housing Act, which guarantees a lessee’s preferential right of sale in violation of Article 21(1) and (7) of the Rental Housing Act, such sale of a rental house shall be deemed null and void under private law as it fundamentally undermines the legislative intent of the Rental Housing Act to ensure a lessee’s right of sale in a housing unit to purchase a rental house in a stable manner (see Supreme Court Decision 2005

Therefore, even if the Defendant concluded a sales contract with a third party for the leased apartment in this case, it is invalid as it violates Article 21(1) and (7) of the Rental Housing Act, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' claims that have been changed in exchange in the trial are well-grounded, it is decided as per Disposition (the previous claim was withdrawn from the exchange change in the litigation made in the trial, and the judgment of the first instance was invalidated).

[Attachment 1] List of Appointeds: Omitted

[Attachment 2] Sales Contract Table: Omitted

Judges Ansan-si (Presiding Judge)