(a) Relation to Article 13(2) of the Rules on Housing Supply relating to Housing Supply Order and Article 17(3)2 of the said Rules on Restriction on Housing Supply Status;

(b) The meaning of "cases of acquiring a house by deceit or other unlawful means" under Article 47 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act;

1. Since Article 13(2) of the Rules on Housing Supply relating to Housing Supply Order and Article 17(3)2 of the same Rule on Restriction on Housing Supply Status are interpreted as separate provisions with independent purposes, in cases where a private housing supply contract goes against the order stipulated in Article 13(8) and where the period for prohibition of re-performance under Article 17(3)2 conflicts with the order stipulated in Article 17(3), a housing supply contract must be cancelled in accordance with Article 17(3), and a housing supply contract in conflict with both Articles 13 and 17 must be cancelled in accordance with any of the above provisions.

2. “Cases where a house is supplied by deception or other unlawful means” in Article 47(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act includes not only active acts such as manipulating the order of application or submitting false documents, but also passive acts which may be recognized as fraudulent or unlawful by social norms as well as passive acts which substantially disrupt the order of housing supply.

(a) Articles 13(2) and 17(3)2 (b) of the Regulations on Housing Supply;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 92Da3291 delivered on January 14, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 10,000 won into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the defendant won the new apartment (number omitted) for the new apartment constructed and supplied under the Housing Construction Promotion Act on December 29, 1989, because the defendant won and bought the apartment (number omitted) in Ansan-si 2, Ansan-si, which is a house constructed and supplied under the same Act, so within five years, the defendant was not entitled to receive the new apartment again supplied under the same Act, and the defendant was awarded the winning of the new apartment (number omitted) for the new apartment (number omitted) on November 21, 1990 after he prepared the two relevant documents, which is a private house supplied under the Housing Construction Promotion Act on November 21, 1990, which is the private house under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the defendant was awarded the winning of the new apartment. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 47 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act for the reason that there is no evidence to recognize the facts charged, even in cases where the defendant acquired the new apartment as above by fraudulent or other unlawful means.

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the defendant's statements at the police and the court below's decision, the statement of apartment house lot list compiled in investigation records, the applicant's certificate submitted by the prosecutor at the court below, the application form for supply of privately constructed apartment houses, and the certificate of personal seal impression, the defendant won and purchased the apartment house (number omitted) located in Ansan-si, the house constructed and supplied under the Housing Construction Promotion Act on December 29, 1989. After that, the defendant, around 15:00 on November 21, 1990, the new apartment company located in Ansan-si, the new apartment company located in Ansan-si, the 312B-dong, the project undertaker of the new apartment company located in Ansan-si, the new apartment company located in the court below and the 312 B-dong, the defendant did not contain any contradiction in the 13-year old apartment house lot list among the 13-year new apartment company's 13-year new apartment lot list, and the 2-year new apartment company supplied the 3-mortgage.

Therefore, as to whether the above two provisions are inconsistent with each other, Article 13(2) of the Rules provides that the winners may not be supplied with the private housing in the order of first priority, but if the second (if two years have passed after deposit of subscription as prescribed by the Rules), or third (if the winners have won the private housing again within five years, Article 17(3)2 of the Rules shall be revoked by the Housing Construction Promotion Act. In addition, Article 13(8) of the Rules provides that the above 13 years have passed since the cancellation of the housing supply contract in the order of second priority, Article 13(2) of the Rules provides that the above 13 years have passed since the cancellation of the housing supply contract in the order of third priority, and Article 13(3) of the Rules provides that the above 13 years have passed since the cancellation of the housing supply contract in the order of second priority, Article 13(3) of the Rules shall not apply for cancellation of the housing supply contract in the order of second priority.

Therefore, according to Article 13(2) of the Rules, even if the winner is eligible to be supplied with a house again without any time limit, the third priority order can be seen as if the winner were eligible to be supplied with a house again without any time limit. However, in the purport of Article 17(3)2 of the Rules, if five years have not elapsed since Article 17(3) of the Rules, the eligibility to be supplied with a house again under the Housing Construction Promotion Act is limited (this is clear even when examining the amendment process of Article 17 of the Rules), Article 13 of the Rules is not a separate provision for the purpose of regulating the eligibility to be supplied with a house, and Article 17(3)2 of the Rules is not a mutually contradictory one. However, the court below held that Article 17(3)2 of the Rules applies only to the first priority one of the apartment houses stipulated in Article 13 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and that the defendant's act of supplying a new apartment house can be seen as an act of supplying a new apartment house without any limit to the second priority period as an act of supplying a new apartment.

Therefore, under the premise that Articles 13 and 17 of the Rules are inconsistent with each other, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence that the defendant had been sold the above new apartment by deceit or other unlawful means, and thereby, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 47(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Articles 13 and 17 of the above Rules, which affected

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which accepted the appeal by the prosecutor, and the decision is delivered again

On December 29, 1989, the Defendant purchased treatment apartment (number omitted) located in Ansan-si 2, 1989, and thus, within five years, the Defendant was not entitled to re-supply of the housing supplied under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, despite the fact that no longer is entitled to re-supply of the housing supplied under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the Defendant was supplied with the new apartment (number omitted) which is a private house (number omitted) constructed and supplied by the householder after attaching a certified resident registration copy, etc. to the new apartment as if he had been qualified in the model house of the new comprehensive construction company at Ansan-si 312B-dong, Ansan-dong, 190.

1. Statements that conform to the facts set forth in the original judgment by the defendant;

1. Statement consistent with the facts indicated in the ruling among the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused in preparation of judicial police assistant;

1. Each statement consistent with the facts stated in the judgment, among the applicant's certificate of confirmation, application for supply of privately-owned housing, and certificate of personal seal impression attached to the trial record

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 51 subparagraph 6 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 47 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act.

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Seo Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)