(a) Period as a homeless person who is required for becoming a member of the housing association; and

(b) Criteria for determining whether a person is homeless under the Housing Construction Promotion Act;

A. In light of the definition of a housing association under Article 3 subparagraph 9 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992) or the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Rules on Housing Supply, which is based on Article 32 of the same Act, a member of a workplace association, should be at least a member at the time of the establishment of the association, and if the member is from the beginning, he must be a homeless at the time of the establishment of the association, and shall be a homeless at the time of occupancy.

B. Considering the legislative purpose of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule thereunder, the regulations on housing supply, and the regulations on the acquisition of real rights after selling our legal system and housing, which take the equitable principle, and the acquisition of real rights, where a person holds a registered title in order to be exempted from transfer income tax, whether the person is a homeless person under the same law should be determined on the basis of an owner on the public register unless there is no other special circumstance or invalid cause

A. Article 3 subparag. 9 and Article 47(1) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 192); Article 4(1)2 of the Rules on Housing Supply. Article 2 subparag. 7 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 489 of Aug. 1, 1991)

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da49027 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2392). Supreme Court Decision 93Do267 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1761) 93Do2344 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 743) 92Do3203 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1427) 93Da61574 delivered on February 222, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1087)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No8265 delivered on September 2, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the definition of the housing association under Article 3 subparagraph 9 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992) or the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Rules on Housing Supply, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation based on Article 32 of the same Act, a member of the workplace association shall be deemed to be homeless at least at the time of the establishment of the association, and at the time of the establishment of the association if the member was from the beginning, and at the time of the establishment of the association, he shall be deemed to be homeless at the time of the establishment of the association, and shall be deemed to be homeless until the time of occupancy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da49027, Jul. 27, 1993; 93Do267, May 14, 1993)

The precedents of party members cited by the theory of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 92Do2991 delivered on January 26, 1993) are precedents that purport that a member of a housing association constitutes a case where a member of a housing association supplies a house under Article 51 subparagraph 6 of the same Act when the project plan determined as a person eligible for occupancy is approved, and it is not a case concerning the qualification of a member of the housing association, and therefore, it is not a case of this case.

On the second ground for appeal

Considering the legislative purpose of the above Housing Construction Promotion Act, the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule thereof, the regulations on the supply of housing, and the regulations on the acquisition of real rights after selling our legal system and housing, which take the form of the rules on the supply of housing, and the fact that if a person holds a registered title to be exempted from the transfer income tax, whether the person is a homeless person under the same law shall be determined on the basis of an owner on the public register unless there is no other special circumstance or invalid cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da49027, Jul. 27, 1993; 92Do3203, Apr. 13, 1993).

According to the records of this case, the defendant sold the main apartment to the non-indicted 1 and paid the price to the non-indicted 2 around April 1987 in the decision that he acquired on December 8, 1983. However, the transfer of ownership registration is a special contract made after March 1989 due to the circumstances of the defendant who tried to be exempted from the transfer income tax by holding the above apartment for not less than five years on the register, and the transfer of ownership registration was made after the above main apartment was registered on April 1989, and the authorization date of the establishment of the workplace workplace association of this case was October 8, 198. Thus, the defendant cannot be viewed as being a non-indicted 1 in the above law because he still holds the title of ownership of the above main apartment at the time of the authorization date of the establishment of the workplace workplace association.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the homeless under the above law, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for the conclusion

On the third ground for appeal

Examining the records of this case, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was aware that he was supplied housing by fraudulent or other unlawful means because he did not have no no home at the time of the date of the authorization for the establishment of the housing association because he was unaware of the fact that he was admitted to the association without being qualified as a

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)