1. The deadline for making a decision on recommendations for the return of unjust enrichment by the Suwon District Court 2016Gaso6793.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The B apartment 101, 1301, 1301 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) is a constructed rental house with a subsidy from the National Housing Fund, and is qualified for preferential sale to the homeless lessee.

B. On April 29, 2010, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the Dong Mine Comprehensive Land Co., Ltd., a project implementer for the apartment of this case.

Meanwhile, Article 21 of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 10463, Mar. 9, 2011; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”) provides that, except in special circumstances, only to the lessee who is a homeless person who has continuously resided in the rental house from the date of occupancy to the date of conversion for sale in lots shall preferentially make a conversion for sale in lots, and Article 6 of the said Act prohibits the transfer of the right of lease and sub-lease

C. However, on December 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) lent the instant apartment to a third party by means of filing a resident registration on the instant apartment; and (b) received a disposition of suspending indictment from the investigative agency on August 11, 2016 regarding the suspected violation of the Rental Housing Act.

On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff, including the instant apartment, received succession to the status of the rental business operator from the Dong Mine Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. for 270 households including the instant apartment, and completed each registration of ownership transfer.

E. On November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained approval for conversion of the instant apartment to sale in lots from the competent authority.

However, on November 12, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a general sales contract for the instant apartment with the Defendant for the reason that the Defendant is not a tenant eligible for preferential conversion into parcelling-out.

However, in the case of a tenant qualified for preferential purchase conversion, the apartment of this case can be purchased in KRW 80,125,00.

F. Although the plaintiff should sell to the defendant the preferential purchase price, the plaintiff has sold the goods at a higher price than that of the preferential purchase price, and thus the plaintiff is equivalent to the above difference.