The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the interpretation and validity of Article 18(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, the main text of Article 19 of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015; hereinafter the same) prohibits, in principle, the transfer of the right of lease or the sub-lease of the rental house, and stipulates, “it may be transferred or sub-leased where a rental business operator’s consent is obtained in cases prescribed

Accordingly, Article 18(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26749, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter the same) provides for one of the cases prescribed by Presidential Decree under the proviso of Article 19 of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26749, Dec. 1, 2015).

In addition, Article 2 (2) of the same Act provides that a lessee who intends to obtain the consent to the transfer of a right of lease or the sublease of a rental house shall submit to a rental business operator data proving the above reasons, and Article 3 (3) of the same Act provides that a rental business operator shall accept the request for the transfer of a right of lease or the sublease of

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court cannot be deemed to have excessively restricted the rental business operator’s freedom of occupation or property right, etc., since Article 18(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, which was delegated by Article 19 of the former Rental Housing Act to “reasons that exceptionally permit the transfer or sub-lease of a right of lease,” provided for the rental business operator’s duty to consent, only because it is merely clear that it is possible to interpret the former Rental Housing Act,