Attached Nos. 1 through 57, and 60.

Attached No. 61 through 110 is as shown in the list of plaintiffs.

[Attachment 1] List No. 58,59 is as shown in [Attachment 1] (Law Firm Korea, Attorneys Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 24, 2017

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap43910 Decided June 9, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' appeals and defendant's appeals listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 to 57, 60 to 110 are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 2 [Attachment 2] with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff (each of the plaintiffs listed in Nos. 1 through 57, 60, and 110)

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the above plaintiffs shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 through 57, and 60 (hereinafter referred to as "attached Table 1") the attached Table 2 [Attachment Table 2] with respect to each of the money recorded in the "additional Damage Amount" and each of the above money in the "Additional Damage Amount" from April 17, 2014 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. ② The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 61 through 71 the attached Table 2 [Attachment Table 2] with respect to each of the above money in the "Total Amount" column, from July 3, 2013 to the day of service of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 15% per annum to the day of next 21 to 25% per annum.

B. Defendant

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 through 60 shall be revoked, and all the claims against the plaintiff 1 through 60 shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal of a part below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts in height:

A. The 7th 12th son’s testimony in the judgment of the court of first instance is written with “the testimony of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s testimony of the court of first instance”.

B. The 8th to 10 parts of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cut down as follows.

Although Plaintiff 1 through 57 claimed that Plaintiff 1 through 57 paid KRW 1 million to the Defendant, Plaintiff 60,000,000 to the Defendant, it is difficult to believe that the entry of Nonparty 2’s witness in this court’s evidence Nos. 11 through 13 does not coincide with the allegations of the Plaintiffs, in light of the motive, form, process and timing of the preparation, submission, timing of the submission, and partial inconsistency with the allegations of the Plaintiffs, it is difficult to believe that the entry of Nonparty 2’s witness in this court’s evidence Nos. 3-1 through 25, 10-1 through 36, 10-1 through 4, 14-1 through 18, 14-18, and 14-18 of the evidence No. 10, and the testimony of Nonparty 2 as well as the testimony of Nonparty 2 of this court, it is insufficient to admit the Plaintiffs’

C. Nonparty 1, who is the 8th and 20th of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be appointed as Nonparty 1, who is a witness of the first instance trial.

D. The 10th parallel 4 to 14th parallels in the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

Article 21(7) of the amended Rental Housing Act provides that “If a lessee fails to comply with the conversion for sale for six or more months after a rental business operator obtained approval for conversion for sale in lots under paragraph (4), a rental business operator may sell the relevant rental house to a third party, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs,” the said rental house may be sold to the said third party as “sale conversion price” even in cases of a general sale in lots. Accordingly, even to Plaintiff 61 or 110, the Defendant shall return the money received in excess of the pre-sale conversion price for the instant apartment to the Plaintiff 61 or 110.

The purpose of the Act is to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure the stability of national housing life. In particular, when imposing various restrictions on rental business operators to achieve the purpose of the Act, the rental business operators recognize the right to priority purchase conversion of rental housing after the lapse of the mandatory rental period and provide for the standards for calculating the pre-sale conversion price so that the rental business operators can prevent arbitrary pre-sale conversion of rental housing and sell the rental housing to the reasonable pre-sale conversion price. Thus, such mandatory provisions on the standards for calculating pre-sale conversion are difficult to be regarded as the first-sale of rental housing for tenants with no right to sell housing, and ② Article 21(10) of the Rental Housing Act provides that the method, procedure, and price of the pre-sale conversion of the pre-sale rental housing should be determined by the Presidential Decree, and it is more reasonable to interpret that the pre-sale conversion of the pre-sale rental housing is the first-sale housing as the first-sale conversion of the pre-sale housing as the first-sale housing as the first-sale housing as the second-sale housing as the first-sale housing.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion with this court, and all appeals filed by plaintiffs 1 through 57, 60 through 110 and the defendant are dismissed on the grounds that each ground is reasonable.

[Attachment]

Judges Han-chul (Presiding Judge)

1) On August 28, 2015, the Rental Housing Act was wholly amended to the “Special Act on Private Rental Housing (Act No. 13499, Dec. 29, 2015)”. Therefore, the former Rental Housing Act marks it as above for accurate expressions or convenience.