[1] The purport of Article 6 of the former Act on Temporary Measures for the Improvement of Dwelling Conditions for Low-Income Urban Residents, which is stipulated that the project implementer deducts the proceeds from the disposal of the State and public land within the residential environment improvement district that is gratuitously transferred from the housing price supplied to residents within the district under the said district from the housing price.

[2] The scope of persons eligible for the application of the sale price deducted at the time of conversion of rental housing constructed as a residential environment improvement project pursuant to the criteria for housing supply and management plan under Articles 10(4) and 12(3) of the former Act on Temporary Measures for the Improvement of Dwelling Conditions for Low-Income Urban Residents, and the scope of the persons eligible for the application of the sale price deducted at the time of conversion of rental housing constructed as a residential environment improvement project pursuant to the housing supply standards and management and disposal plan stipulated by the project implementer, and whether a person who resided in a residential environment improvement zone and leased rental

[1] Articles 10(4) and (5), 11, and 12(3) of the former Act on Temporary Measures for the Improvement of Residential Environments and Low-Income Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Act No. 6852, Dec. 20, 2002) / [2] Articles 10(4) and (5), 11, and 12(3) of the former Act on Temporary Measures for the Improvement of Residential Environments and Dwelling Conditions for Residential Environments (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Act No.

Plaintiff 1 (Law Firm Hex, Attorneys Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 2

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2007Na23859 Decided June 11, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 10(5) of the former Act on Temporary Measures for the Improvement of Residential Environment for Low-Income Urban Residents (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the “Act”) provides that the State or a local government-owned land in a residential environment improvement project shall be provided with a residential environment improvement project after designating the relevant area as a residential environment improvement district for the improvement of the residential environment in a low-income urban area in which the residential environment is poor; and Article 10(5) provides that housing to be built by the implementation of a residential environment improvement project shall be preferentially supplied to the residents of the said residential environment improvement district for a certain period as of the base date prescribed by the Presidential Decree; Article 10(4) provides that the State or a local government-owned land in a residential environment improvement project shall be supplied to the residents of the said district without compensation within the scope prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation; Article 10(2) of the Act provides that the previous residential environment improvement project is abolished.

According to the facts and evidence duly established by the court below, the defendant constructed 401 apartment units under Article 7 and Article 10 of the Act (hereinafter "the district of this case"). The district of this case was transferred without compensation to the defendant pursuant to Article 11 of the Act, and the housing supply standard approved by the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on June 9, 200 (hereinafter "standard for housing supply"), which was established under Article 10 (4) of the Act, on the ground that the housing unit sale contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff 2 and the tenant of this case and the tenant of this case, and the tenant of this case was 10 and the tenant of this case's housing unit sale contract of this case were 10 and the tenant of this case's housing unit sale contract of this case. The tenant of this case was 10 and the tenant of this case's housing unit sale contract of this case was 10 and the tenant of this case's housing unit sale contract of this case was 20 and the tenant of this case's housing unit sale price of this case was 3 months or longer.

In light of the purport of Article 11 of the Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s standard for the supply of the instant housing and that, in the case of rental housing under a contract entered into by the residents of the instant district, the amount should be deducted from the fixed rate of the State-owned or public land gratuitously granted in the sale price of the housing at the time of conversion of the housing in lots is in accordance with the purport of Article 11 of the Act and Article 6 of the above Enforcement Rule. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the person eligible for the application of the sale price deducted in the sale price of rental housing stipulated in the criteria for the supply of the instant housing as a resident of the instant district and who has maintained the status of the tenant until the time of conversion of the sale in lots after the conclusion of the lease contract with the Defendant as a resident of the instant district. Therefore, the person who succeeded to the status of the tenant is not subject to the application of the sale in lots at the time of conversion in lots.

However, according to the above facts, Plaintiff 2, as well as Plaintiff 1, the wife, and the tenant in the instant district, leased the instant house from the Defendant, and thereafter Plaintiff 1 succeeded to the lessee’s status through division of property following divorce, and thus, Plaintiff 1, as Plaintiff 1, may be subject to the sale price deducted in the conversion of the instant house into parcelling-out. Nevertheless, as long as Plaintiff 1 succeeded to the lessee’s status as the tenant in the instant house from Plaintiff 2, the lower court determined that the sale price deducted in the conversion into parcelling-out of the instant house is not applicable. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on cases where the sale price, which is deducted from the standard for the supply of the instant house, can be applied.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)