1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, while entering into a lease agreement with the plaintiff, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and 116 dong 1507, he owned another house.

The Plaintiff terminated the lease contract on the grounds of this.

The defendant is obligated to deliver C Apartment 116 Dong 1507 to the plaintiff.

2. The fact that the Defendant’s son acquired ownership of Da and 201 Dong 1901, in the period of the lease agreement, on October 13, 2016 is under dispute between the parties.

Comprehensively taking account of the contents of a lease agreement and the relevant provisions regarding the tenant’s eligibility for occupancy of a public construction rental house, the Plaintiff, a lessor of a public housing, may not terminate the lease agreement on the basis thereof if there are extenuating circumstances that make it difficult to view that the tenant’s member’s ownership of another house during the lease period becomes unnecessary due to the lessee’s ownership of another house during the lease period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da44975, Nov. 23, 2006). In full view of the respective provisions in subparagraphs 1 through 21, it is recognized that the Defendant’s children, who completed a marriage ceremony on October 15, 2016 and actually divided the ownership of another house and reside in the apartment house incheon.

Since it is difficult to regard the defendant's children who have raised marriage awareness and actually divided it as a member of the defendant's household, and such circumstance is not the same as the case where the need to supply rental housing to the lessee comes to a special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff, a lessor of public housing, cannot terminate the lease contract on the ground that the plaintiff, a member of the defendant's household, acquired another house.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.