2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 in the judgment of the Supreme Court) shall deliver the real estate listed in attached Form 1, and Defendant 2 shall deliver the real estate listed in attached Table 2, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed, respectively.

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On April 1, 2008, Defendant 1: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Korea National Housing Corporation (established by Act No. 9706, May 22, 2009; and (b) concluded between the Korea National Housing Corporation and the Korea Land Corporation pursuant to Article 7 of the Addenda to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act (established by Act No. 9706, May 22, 2009; and (c) pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Addenda to the same Act, the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to the property, claims, debts, and other rights and obligations of the Korea National Housing Corporation; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on the real estate listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “real estate 1”) during the lease term between March 1, 2008 and February 28, 2010; and (d) concluded a lease agreement with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation as KRW 10,89,000, monthly rent 112,910 (hereinafter “the General Conditions”).

(2) However, on May 23, 2008, Nonparty 1, who was Defendant 1’s spouse, acquired the ownership of the Doma-dong 191-17 Multi-household 17 (hereinafter “multi-household 1”) (hereinafter “multi-household 1”) and accordingly notified Defendant 1 that the Plaintiff would terminate the first lease contract.

(3) After receiving the notice of termination of the first lease contract from the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit seeking a divorce, etc. against Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff. The Seoul Family Court (2009da71032, 100404, 10404) declared on November 29, 2010 that “the Defendant and Nonparty 1 are divorced.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-7, Eul evidence 5-7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

B. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, the non-party 1, who was a spouse under the law of the defendant 1, acquired the ownership of the first multi-household house. This constitutes "cases where the non-party 1 owns another house during the lease term of the public constructed rental house" as provided by Article 10 (1) 7 of the general terms of the contract of this case. Thus, the first lease contract is legally terminated by the plaintiff's declaration of termination. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant 1 is obligated to deliver the first real estate to the plaintiff as restitution.

(2) As to this, Defendant 1, while Nonparty 1 was the legal spouse of Defendant 1 at the time of termination of the first lease contract, was in a de facto marital relationship with Nonparty 3 by leaving around August 1983, and Nonparty 1 acquired the ownership of the first multi-household house under the above circumstances. Nonparty 1 is not a member of Defendant 1, but is not a member of the household, and even if a member of the household is a member of the household, it constitutes “where he comes to own another house due to inheritance, judgment, marriage, or any other inevitable reason” as provided in the proviso of Article 10(1)7 of the General Conditions of the first lease contract. Accordingly, Defendant 1 still is a non-resident. Thus, Defendant 1 asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination of the first lease contract is unlawful because it did not meet the requirements.

Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Rules on Housing Supply provides that "the head of a household, including the head of a household (including the head of a household who has not been registered in the same resident registration card as the head of a household and the head of a household who forms the same household as the spouse of the head of a household and the spouse of the head of a household who is not registered in the same resident registration card as the head of a household)" who is qualified as a lessee of a rental house is "the head of a household who does not own a house." In light of the legislative intent of the Rental Housing Act and the legislative purpose of stabilizing the living of the people, the legal spouse

Meanwhile, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 7, it is reasonable to view that the non-party 1's spouse, after leaving home around August 1983 and maintaining de facto marital relations with the plaintiff around May 2008, while maintaining a de facto marital relationship with the non-party 3. Thus, the acquisition of the ownership of the non-party 1 multi-household house in a separate state with the non-party 1 for more than 20 years constitutes "cases where the non-party 1 becomes the owner of another house due to unavoidable reasons". Meanwhile, according to the statement in evidence No. 1-7, the proviso of Article 10 (1)-7 of the General Conditions in the first lease contract excludes "cases where the non-party 1 disposes of the relevant house within 6 months from the date of being notified of the non-party 1's qualification as a non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the first real estate as the restitution following the termination of the first lease contract.

2. Claim against the defendant 2

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) Around 191, Defendant 2 entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the real estate listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “second real estate”) and subsequently renewed the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2008 (hereinafter “second lease agreement”) and agreed that the Plaintiff, a lessor, may terminate the lease agreement if Defendant 2, a lessee, leased a rental house or owned another house during the lease term (Article 10(1)1 and 7 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contracts).

(2) Nonparty 6, who is Defendant 2’s ASEAN, resided in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 508-75 Moradong (hereinafter 5 omitted), and acquired the ownership of a multi-household house (hereinafter 6 omitted) (hereinafter “multi-household house”) located in the Government-si around December 15, 2006.

(3) On April 12, 2007, Nonparty 6 completed the move-in report with the second real estate around April 12, 2007, and on the other hand, with respect to the second multi-household housing, the transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 7 was completed on the ground of sale from July 13, 2007 on June 30, 2007.

(4) Around June 30, 2008, Defendant 2 entered into a renewal contract with the Plaintiff, which changes the lease term from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010, the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,889,00 and KRW 126,410 each month (hereinafter “instant renewal contract”).

(5) However, the Plaintiff became aware that Nonparty 6, who is Defendant 2’s member of the household, acquired ownership of the second multi-household house, and notified Defendant 2 of the termination of the instant renewal contract.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-8, Eul evidence 1-B, 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, the non-party 6 became a member of the household of the defendant 2, holding the ownership of the second multi-household house, which constitutes "the case where the non-party 6 owns another house during the lease period of the public constructed rental house" as provided by Article 10 (1) 7 of the lease contract of this case. Thus, the renewal contract of this case was lawfully terminated upon the plaintiff's declaration of termination. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant 2 is obligated to deliver the second real estate to the plaintiff as the restoration of the original state.

(2) As to this, Defendant 2 asserts that, although Nonparty 6 completed the move-in report on the second real estate around April 12, 2007, as long as he transferred the ownership of the second multi-household house to Nonparty 7 around July 13, 2007, Defendant 2 constituted a homeless household at the time of entering into the renewal contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination is unlawful as it did not meet the requirements.

The conclusion of the move-in report on the second real estate in the status of the acquisition of the ownership of the second multi-household house by the non-party 6 does not constitute “cases where the non-party 6 comes to own another house due to inheritance, judgment or marriage or any other unavoidable reason” under the proviso of Article 10(1)7 of the General Conditions of the Lease Contract. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the lessee of a house that is preferentially supplied to a homeless householder shall continue to meet the requirements of a homeless householder during the term of lease, and if he fails to maintain the requirements as a homeless householder during the term of lease, he shall lose the requirements for the tenant. Furthermore, if the lessee impliedly and renewed the lease, this constitutes a case of leasing a rental house in a false or other unlawful manner, which constitutes a ground for termination of the contract, and even if the lessor did not know such fact and renewed the lease, the lessor who became aware of such fact may be deemed the ground for termination of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da3848, May 29, 2008). Thus, unless Nonparty 6 reported a move-in report on the second real estate after acquiring the ownership of a multi-household house, Defendant 2 lost the requirements of a homeless householder immediately, and as long as Defendant 2 concluded the contract in this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff without notifying the fact, this constitutes a ground for renewal of the lease contract in this case, and thus, Defendant 2 cannot be seen as the ground for termination of the contract.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the second real estate as the restitution following the termination of the instant renewal contract.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-hee (Presiding Judge)