(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.7.25.선고 2013구합701 판결

2. On February 6, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of approval for conversion of rental housing to sale in lots on I apartment in the Hongcheon-gun Hongcheon-gun H was revoked.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, and G and the Defendant, including the cost of participation as a supplementary participant. The remainder of the part arising between the Plaintiffs, other than the above Plaintiffs, and the Defendant, shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim

Paragraph 2 of this Article.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs are lessees who moved into the "I apartment house," which is a rental apartment located in Hongcheon-gun H (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment house in this case"), and the defendant's supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") is the lessee.

B. On October 24, 2005, the intervenor constructed the apartment of this case composed of 320 households in total consisting of 10 to 15 floors following the conclusion of the construction contract for the apartment of this case with the Sejong Comprehensive Construction Corporation, a construction contractor, and 10-15 floors, and constructed the apartment of this case, which was composed of 320 households in total, from March 10, 2006, and concluded a lease contract with the plaintiffs who applied for occupancy through public announcement of invitation of residents, etc. from March 10, 2006

C. On October 2012, the Intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for transfer-sale registration of the instant apartment under Article 16(1)4 of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”) and Article 13(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2443, Mar. 3, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act”), and the five-year lease period under Article 21 of the former Rental Housing Act (hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act”).

D. On October 2012, the Defendant, as an appraisal corporation for calculating the pre-sale conversion price for the instant apartment pursuant to Article 21(9) of the former Rental Housing Act, selected each appraisal corporation and one appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) and one appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) respectively, and had the said appraisal corporation appraise the pre-sale conversion for the said apartment.

E. On February 6, 2013, the Defendant calculated the following pre-sale conversion price for the instant apartment pursuant to attached Table 1 of Article 9(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 44, Dec. 5, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act”) (hereinafter “standards for calculation of pre-sale conversion price”) (hereinafter “pre-sale conversion price calculated”) and approved the pre-sale conversion of the said apartment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

○ The instant pre-sale conversion unit (unit: won)

A person shall be appointed.

F. The laws and regulations regarding the instant case are as shown in the attached Form.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, 6, and 8

statement, the purport of the whole pleading, including, but not limited to

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant and the intervenor's assertion

1) The instant disposition constitutes a lecture authorization to supplement the validity of the Intervenor’s application for approval for conversion for sale in lots and complete its legal effect, and thus, the Plaintiffs did not have any interest to seek revocation of the instant disposition on the ground of illegality in calculating the conversion price for sale in lots corresponding to the basic conduct of the instant disposition.

2) Since Plaintiff J, K, L, L, D, M, N,O, P, B, Q, R, E, C, F, G, and S do not constitute a preferential purchaser, there is no benefit to seek revocation of the instant disposition, and among them, Plaintiff K, L, D, M, P, P, C, F, F, GIST, and Plaintiff T were removed from the relevant rental housing because they did not enter into a sales contract after the lapse of the period for the conclusion of the sales contract, and therefore, there is no benefit to seek revocation of the instant disposition.

3) The remaining plaintiffs 1, excluding the plaintiffs in the above 2) had already concluded a sales contract with the view to the relevant rental housing, and there is no benefit to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the instant disposition constitutes an authorization for lectures

The legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act is to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure the stability of the people’s residential life, and to achieve that purpose, imposing various restrictions on rental business operators, in particular, the right to preferential purchase conversion of rental housing is recognized to homeless lessee after the lapse of the mandatory rental period (Article 21(1)). In addition, by prescribing the appraisal procedure necessary for calculating the pre-sale conversion price of rental housing and the criteria for calculating the pre-sale conversion price, to prevent lessee from arbitrarily setting the pre-sale conversion price and to ensure the sale of leased housing at a reasonable pre-sale conversion price. Accordingly, in full view of the fact that the head of Si/Gun/Gu implements an appraisal for calculating the pre-sale conversion price and imposes an obligation to approve the pre-sale conversion price prescribed by the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (Article 21(4)), it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case is an academic authorization that approves the pre-sale conversion price as it is, and in itself, constitutes an independent administrative disposition.

Therefore, the defendant and the intervenor's partial order in the other prior system are groundless.

2) As to the assertion that there is no benefit to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case by certain plaintiffs who do not fall under or withdraw from the priority subject to purchase conversion

The legal interest as referred to in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to a direct and specific benefit protected by the relevant administrative disposition, and it does not include a mere indirect or factual or economic interest in relation to the relevant administrative disposition. However, even if a third party who is not the direct counterpart of the administrative disposition is not a party, if the legal interest protected by the relevant administrative disposition is infringed, he/she is entitled to file a revocation lawsuit and obtain a decision on the propriety thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du12289, Jan. 25, 2007).

According to the former Rental Housing Act, where a rental business operator sells a rental house for sale after the lapse of the mandatory rental period, he/she shall first make a conversion into a house for sale from the date of occupancy to the date of conversion into a house for sale (Article 21(1)); and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall conduct an appraisal for calculating the pre-sale conversion price (Article 21(9)); and may not adjust or modify the pre-sale conversion price under the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (Article 21(4)). In full view of the above provisions, a lessee subject to the pre-sale conversion should be deemed to have a direct and specific interest protected by the former Rental Housing Act, which is the basis for the disposition of the instant case regarding the method of calculating the pre-sale conversion price of a leased house or the result of calculating the pre-sale conversion price, barring any special circumstance, in the case of a lessee who is not the first-sale conversion, the remaining households after the conversion into sale to a house is supplied to the general public.

The facts that Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are not eligible for preferential purchase do not conflict between the parties. However, the facts that Plaintiff J, K, L, M, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, and T are the persons with no home, and resided in the apartment of this case from the date of occupancy to the time of sale for sale after the date of purchase for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale for sale

According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, and G cannot be deemed to have a direct and specific benefit protected by the former Rental Housing Act, which is the legal basis for the instant disposition, based on the method or result of calculating the pre-sale conversion price of the instant apartment, based on the method or result of calculation of the pre-sale conversion price of the instant apartment. Therefore, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the instant disposition on the ground of illegality such as the method or result of calculation

However, as seen above, the Plaintiff J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, and T may be deemed to have a direct and specific interest protected by the former Rental Housing Act, which is the legal basis for the disposition of the instant case, regarding the method of calculating the pre-sale conversion price or the result of calculation thereof. As such, there is a legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of the instant case. Furthermore, even if part of the Plaintiffs, as alleged by the Defendant, were to leave the relevant rental house after the lapse of the period for concluding the pre-sale conversion, they cannot be deemed to have extinguished a legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of the instant rental house, solely because they failed to conclude the pre-sale contract during the period for concluding the sales contract after the lapse of the period for concluding the sales contract.

Ultimately, this part of the argument by the Defendant and the Intervenor is with merit for Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, who did not correspond to the person subject to the preferential purchase conversion, and there is no reason for the rest of the Plaintiffs.

3) As to the assertion that some plaintiffs have no interest in seeking cancellation of the instant disposition by concluding a contract for sale in lots

Even if the Plaintiffs already concluded a double-sale contract regarding the pertinent rental housing as the head of the Defendant et al., the direct and specific interests protected by the Act seeking revocation of the instant disposition cannot be deemed extinguished as long as the Plaintiffs are subject to preferential pre-sale conversion, and the Plaintiffs still have the profits to conclude a sales contract that newly determined the pre-sale conversion price as the selling price after revocation of the instant disposition, regardless of whether the Plaintiffs have the right to claim for return of unjust enrichment regarding the sales price exceeding the pre-sale conversion price under the former Rental Housing Act, the said Plaintiffs still have a legal interest to seek revocation of the instant disposition on the grounds of illegality, such as the method of calculating the pre-sale conversion price exceeding the pre-sale conversion price under the former Rental Housing

Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and the intervenor is groundless.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The disposition of this case is subject to cancellation because of the following errors related to the calculation of pre-sale conversion price.

1) In the process of having an appraisal corporation conduct an appraisal of the instant apartment building on the pre-sale conversion conversion price, the Defendant’s act of having an appraisal corporation conduct an appraisal by excluding the expanding part of balcony among the instant apartment buildings without any reasonable grounds, and again making the appraisal of the said balcony on a separate road. It is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion to the appraisal procedure, as it damages objectivity, neutrality, fairness, etc.

2) Although the “construction cost” under Paragraph 2(a) of the pre-sale conversion price calculation standard should be calculated based on the actual input construction cost, the Defendant calculated the construction cost based on the standard construction cost, which is unlawful.

3) In calculating the "amount obtained by subtracting depreciation costs from the calculated price," which is the upper limit of the pre-sale conversion price of this case, the above "calculated price" should be calculated by the "construction cost at the time of the pre-sale conversion + interest on the housing site cost at the time of the public announcement of tenant recruitment +" pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the pre-sale conversion calculation standard. Among them, the "construction cost at the time of sale conversion" should be deemed the actual input construction cost, but the defendant calculated based on the standard construction cost applied at the time of sale conversion, which is unlawful.

4) Despite the fact that the apartment of this case is a reinforced concrete structure, the Defendant calculated the apartment of this case by adding 5% to the fixed quasi-construction cost pursuant to Paragraph (2) Item (c) of the pre-sale conversion price calculation standard to the "construction cost at the time of sale conversion", which serves as the basis for calculation of pre-sale conversion price calculation standard, by deeming it as a steel reinforced concrete menter structure. This is unlawful.

5) The Defendant added KRW 6,00,000,000, which is the appraised value for the expansion of balcony to the “construction cost at the time of the sale conversion.” However, considering that the instant apartment is a house constructed at a time of balcony shower, the Defendant added the total amount of KRW 6,00,00,00 to the standard construction cost pursuant to Paragraph (2) (f) (i) of Paragraph (2) of the calculation standard for the sale conversion price of balcony, even though the said apartment should be added to only the expenses within 5% of the standard construction cost pursuant to Paragraph (1) of the said Article, it is unlawful to add the said appraisal cost even though the amount should be calculated based on the construction cost actually invested in balcony construction.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be admitted as either in dispute between the parties or in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in the entry of Gap evidence 3, 8 through 10, 19 through 22, and 26:

(a)The main contents of the criteria for computing the price for conversion to sale are as follows:

○○ pre-sale conversion price: The arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value, but it may not exceed the amount obtained by subtracting depreciation costs during the lease period from the calculation price = The housing price at the time of initial recruitment of occupants + self-interest depreciation costs - the housing price at the time of initial recruitment of occupants: The computed by the person entitled to approve the invitation of occupants based on the construction cost and housing site cost at the time of initial recruitment of occupants: The computed price by the person entitled to approve the invitation of occupants + the construction cost at the time of announcement of recruitment of occupants + the maximum construction cost at the time of construction cost at the time of the announcement of recruitment of occupants: the price (standard construction cost) as the price separately publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs plus 5% of the standard construction cost. - Where a rental business operator constructs a house constructed with a reinforced reinforced structure at a time, the construction cost at the time of construction of balcony may be added to the construction cost (excluding the construction cost at the time of construction of balcony at the time of construction of balcony).

(b)In calculating the conversion price of this case, "Construction Costs" was calculated on September 20, 204, on the basis of the standard construction costs under the Notice of Standard Construction Costs for the Construction Costs for the Construction Costs for the Construction Costs for the Construction Costs for the Construction Costs for the Construction on September 20, 204, as indicated below, as KRW 91,81,079, 6,843,377, and "self-interest" as KRW 12,308,871, respectively.

A person shall be appointed.

C)The "amount obtained by subtracting the depreciation cost from the computed price above the upper limit of the purchase price of this case" shall be calculated on December 9, 2008 by subtracting the depreciation cost from the computed price below, as follows: 82,271,541 won per meter, plus 18,583,277 won, plus 18,583,85,818 won, plus 9,45,705 won, which is the total sum of the construction cost and interest on the housing site at the time of the recruitment of occupants, calculated as follows: 12,308,871 won, which is the depreciation cost (i.e., 105,84,871 won, 875 won, 105,84,8184, 7054, 705, 7085, 7085 won, 197, 705

○ Basic Building Costs: 82,271,541 won

○ Construction costs at the time of conversion for sale in lots: 100,854,818 won

A person shall be appointed.

○ Calculation Price - Depreciation Costs: 97,991,652 won

A person shall be appointed.

D)The 's "refluor structure of steel reinforced concrete' among the costs of addition of building costs' is the amount calculated by adding 5% to the standard building cost in accordance with Paragraph 2 (d) (i) of the exchange price calculation standard for the apartment house of this case, deeming the apartment of this case to be a building corresponding to a reinforced concrete mentmen structure. 6,00,000 won on the "confluor expansion cost" column 6,00,000 won in accordance with Paragraph 2 (d) (i) and (v) of the calculation standard for the pre-sale conversion price.

If the statement in Gap evidence No. 6 contains the whole purport of the pleading, the appraisal selected by the defendant

2) Whether it is unlawful to conduct a separate appraisal on the expansion of balcony: Illegally;

The appraisal corporation and one appraisal corporation made an appraisal without excluding the first balcony expansion part in the course of assessing the apartment sale conversion price of this case, and conducted a separate appraisal on November 201, 2012. The appraisal value of the balcony expansion portion was 6,000,000 won for all households. The appraisal value of the balcony expansion portion was calculated by adding the appraisal value of the appraisal amount and the above balcony expansion portion, excluding balcony extension portion.

Meanwhile, according to Article 2(2)(f)(5) of the pre-sale conversion computation standard, the cost of expanding balcony may be added to the construction cost if a lessee is a house that expands the balcony. However, since the appraisal procedure or method for calculating the cost of expanding balcony does not have any special provision under the relevant statutes, such as the former Rental Housing Act, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had an appraisal corporation separately appraise the expanding part of balcony at the time of the said appraisal, thereby damaging the objectivity, neutrality, fairness, etc. of calculating the cost of the land purchase conversion, solely on the ground that the Defendant had an appraisal corporation separately appraise the expanding part of balcony, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff lost the discretion regarding the appraisal procedure. In light of the above, there is no evidence to deem that the appraisal of the expanding part of balcony calculated separately at the time of the first appraisal, the Defendant did not have any separate appraisal of the expanding part of balcony at the time of the first appraisal.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3) Whether the calculation of ‘construction cost' based on the standard construction cost is illegal: positive:

A) The legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act is to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure the stability of national housing life. To achieve that purpose, the former Rental Housing Act imposes various restrictions along with various support on rental business operators. In particular, the right to priority purchase conversion of leased housing on the homeless lessee after the lapse of the mandatory rental period is recognized and the standards for calculating pre-sale conversion are prescribed in detail, thereby preventing rental business operators from arbitrarily setting pre-sale conversion conversion price and ensuring that the sale of rental housing takes place at a reasonable level.

Therefore, the standard for calculating the sale conversion price prescribed by the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act provides that where the mandatory period of lease is five years, the sale conversion price shall be the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value, but it shall not exceed the amount calculated by deducting the depreciation costs during the lease period from the price (calculated price) calculated at the time of the sale of rental housing and housing site costs (paragraph 1 (b)), 'construction cost' = the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants + self-interest - depreciation cost at the first recruitment of occupants - the housing price at the time of the first recruitment of occupants - the housing price at the time of the first recruitment of occupants - the upper limit of the construction cost shall be the price (standard construction cost) separately publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (paragraph 2 (a) (a) and (2) (d) (a))].

In accordance with the above-mentioned provision, the standard building cost refers to the upper limit of building cost reflected in the pre-sale conversion price, and it is clear that the construction cost, which is the basis for the calculation of the pre-sale conversion price, is clearly distinguishable from the construction cost. As such, the construction cost, which is the basis for the calculation of the pre-sale conversion price, is not the standard building cost, but the construction cost, which is the basis for the calculation of the pre-sale conversion price, refers to the construction cost actually invested within the scope of the standard building cost, and does not mean the standard building cost, barring any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision

B) On September 20, 2004, the Defendant calculated the housing price based on the standard construction cost under the notification of the standard construction cost for publicly constructed rental house of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on September 20, 2004, and determined the housing price as KRW 91,81,079. Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the construction cost within the scope of the standard construction cost applied at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants, even though the Defendant should calculate the housing price at the time of the first recruitment of occupants in the process of calculating the construction cost, it was unlawful in light of the aforementioned legal principles. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is with merit.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the "housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants" is not clearly calculated because the "housing price at the time when the construction of the apartment site in this case begins," and therefore, the construction cost should be calculated based on the standard construction cost as above. However, the "housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants" is calculated after the expiration of the mandatory rental period after the completion of the rental house, so it should be deemed that the actual input construction cost can be calculated. In addition, according to the evidence No. 27 and No. 28, the intervenor purchased the housing site in this case in 2,501,805,720, and the intervenor filed an application for reduction of local tax (acquisition tax) due to the acquisition of the apartment after the completion of the apartment building in this case with the defendant around 207, the plaintiff can be acknowledged to have reported the tax base amount to 24,028,113,352 won, and the tax base of acquisition tax at the time of new construction of the building can be determined as the construction cost, i.

4) Whether the calculation of the "construction cost at the time of the conversion into sale" based on the standard construction cost is illegal: positive:

A) On the basis of the pre-sale conversion standard, the pre-sale conversion price should be the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value in the case of five-year lease unit apartment as seen in the instant apartment, and as seen earlier, the construction cost should be calculated by adding its own interest to the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants, which is the amount obtained by adding the construction cost and the housing site cost actually invested by the rental business operator within the scope of the standard construction cost, and less the depreciation cost. On the other hand, the calculation price should be calculated from the calculation price, which remains the upper limit of the pre-sale conversion price less the depreciation cost, by adding the construction cost at the time of the public announcement of tenant recruitment to the "construction cost at the time of the conversion of the pre-sale conversion." The meaning of the above "construction cost at the time of the conversion of the pre-sale" should be deemed to be the construction cost required in the case of newly constructing the relevant rental housing at the

(1) The purport of the former Rental Housing Act stipulating that the pre-sale conversion price of rental housing should be the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value, but such a separate determination of the calculated value is to protect lessee’s exercise of the right to preferential purchase conversion by limiting the pre-sale conversion price in the event that the pre-sale conversion price is excessively high between the time of lease commencement and the time of conversion for sale in lots, and to restrict rental business operators to enjoy excessive market prices profits.

(2) In the case of construction costs, which are the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price, the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price, shall be based on the "construction costs at the time of the pre-sale conversion price". On the other hand, in the case of housing site costs, the interest on the housing site costs at the time of the public announcement of tenant recruitment shall be based on the "housing site costs at the time of the public announcement of tenant recruitment, and the timing for assessing the housing cost and housing site costs, respectively. Even in the case of paragraph (1)

(3) In light of the purport of the approval system for conversion to parcelling-out and the language and text of the calculation standard for conversion price prior to parcelling-out related to the above "calculated price", the above "calculated price" should be deemed to refer to the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants rather than the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants.

(4) If the construction cost at the time of the conversion into sale is interpreted as the construction cost actually invested by a rental business operator in the construction of a leased house, considering that a considerable time has elapsed from the time of the initial construction, the actual input building cost cannot be assessed properly as the housing price at the time of the conversion into sale, and with respect to the housing site cost, it is not consistent with the calculation standard for the interest at the time of the conversion into sale, and it cannot be properly reflected in the "calculated price" that provides for the function as the upper limit of the pre-sale conversion price.

B)However, the defendant calculated the "construction costs at the time of conversion into parcelling-out based on the table quasi-construction costs applied at the time of conversion into parcelling-out." As seen earlier, in order to determine the "construction costs at the time of conversion into parcelling-out," the construction costs to be incurred should be calculated based on the "construction costs at the time of conversion into parcelling-out." Thus, it is unlawful for the defendant to calculate the "construction costs at the time of conversion into parcelling-out as the standard for

Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that "construction costs at the time of conversion into parcelling-out should be calculated as equivalent to "construction costs at the time of conversion into parcelling-out," but as seen earlier, "construction costs at the time of conversion into parcelling-out" shall be deemed "construction costs at the time of new construction of the relevant rental house at the time of conversion into parcelling-out." Thus, the plaintiffs and the above arguments are without merit.

5) Whether the addition of construction costs is illegal by deeming the apartment of this case as a reinforced concrete mentor’s apartment structure

If the written evidence No. 23 states the whole purport of the oral argument, the apartment of this case can be acknowledged as a fact that the apartment of this case is a reinforced concrete brick structure. Thus, it is unlawful that the defendant added KRW 4,113,577 as seen earlier to the construction cost at the time of the conversion of the sale of the above apartment to the construction cost of the building at the time of the conversion of the sale of the apartment of this case. Therefore, the plaintiffs

6) Whether the addition of the cost of expanding balcony to the construction cost is illegal: Unlawful;

According to paragraph (2)(f)(i) and (5) of the criteria for calculating pre-sale conversion price, where a rental business operator is a house executing the balcony voting in a lump sum, the standard construction cost may be added to the construction cost within the limit of 100/5 of the standard construction cost, and where a rental business operator is a house expanding balcony, the construction cost shall be added to the construction cost, but the construction cost shall be excluded.

First, it is illegal to add the total amount of KRW 6,00,000 to the property appraisal cost of balcony extension even though the standard construction cost should be added within 5% under item (d) (f)(1) of the pre-sale conversion standard calculation standard.

According to the criteria for calculating the pre-sale conversion price as seen earlier, when the balcony voting is constructed simultaneously, the expenses incurred in expanding the balcony may be added to the construction cost if the balcony is extended in addition to the construction cost. The fact that the apartment of this case was extended in addition to the construction of the balcony in a lump sum, there is no dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the defendant may be added to the construction cost for expanding the balcony pursuant to Article 2(2)(f)(5) of the above calculation standard. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ assertion on the different premise is without merit.

Next, it is illegal that the defendant added 6,00,000 won to the appraisal value for the expansion of balcony which is not actually invested in the building cost at the time of the conversion into the sale of buildings.

As seen earlier, the "construction cost at the time of the conversion of the sale in lots" should be deemed not to be the construction cost actually invested but the construction cost to be incurred when newly constructing the relevant rental house at the time of the sale in lots. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, the appraisal corporation and one appraisal corporation at the time of the sale in lots, which requested the appraisal on September 24, 2012, appraised the extended part of the balcony as KRW 6,00,00 per household in consideration of the old structure, construction level, materials, management conditions, and ordinary expenses required for the extension of the balcony at the time of the sale in lots. Accordingly, the appraisal price at the time of the sale in lots can be deemed to be the construction cost required for the extension of the balcony at the time of the sale in lots. Accordingly, it is legitimate for the defendant to add the above 6,000,000 won to the construction cost at the time of the sale in lots. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

Finally, it is illegal that the defendant did not exclude the construction cost of balcony shower when adding the construction cost of balcony expansion to the construction cost of balcony.

In light of the contents of paragraph (2) (d) (f) (i) and (5) of the above calculation criteria, the purport that the cost of expanding the balcony should be added to the construction cost, and the cost of constructing the balcony in the balcony is excluded from the construction cost. Thus, insofar as the defendant does not add the construction cost in the balcony in the construction cost separately, it cannot be deemed unlawful to exclude the construction cost in the balcony voting from the construction cost. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

7) Sub-committee

As a result, the disposition of this case is in violation of the law that calculated the "construction cost" and the "construction cost at the time of the conversion into sale" based on the standard construction cost, and that the apartment of this case constitutes a reinforced concrete mentor structure, it should be revoked.

4. Judgment as to the defendant's assertion of circumstance judgment

The Defendant, according to the instant disposition, concluded a lease contract with 200 households and 20 households. In the event that the instant disposition is revoked, the Defendant affected the aforementioned multiple legal relations. As such, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition may cause a significant instability in the legal status of buyers and lessees who form a new legal relationship by re-approval procedure for parcelling-out sale of the instant apartment, and thus, the instant disposition ought to be rendered even if it is unlawful.

Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the court may dismiss the plaintiff's claim when it is deemed that the action of disposition, etc. is not significantly appropriate for the public welfare even if the plaintiff's claim is deemed reasonable.

In a case where an administrative disposition is unlawful, the court may render a judgment that, as a matter of principle, the revocation or alteration of such unlawful disposition is not exceptionally permitted in a case where it is extremely inappropriate for the public welfare, and thus, the revocation of such administrative disposition is not exceptionally permitted. Thus, the application of an assessment judgment should be limited under extremely strict requirements. In determining whether it is substantially inappropriate for the public welfare, which is the requirement thereof, the necessity for cancellation or alteration of the illegal and unjust administrative disposition and the situation against the public welfare which may arise due to the change, etc., shall be compared and compared to the situation against the public welfare which may arise due to the change, and the application thereof shall be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu4660, Jun. 13, 1995; 2009Du8359, Dec. 10, 2009).

In light of the above legal principles, in light of the legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act to recognize the right to preferentially sell a rental house to a homeless lessee, and to prevent rental business operators from arbitrarily setting the pre-sale conversion price, and to protect the residential stability of homeless lessee, the Plaintiffs, as homeless lessees, need to cancel the illegal disposition of this case, such as securing stability in the housing which had been previously sold on the pre-sale conversion price, and most of the Plaintiffs are residing in the apartment of this case after entering into a pre-sale contract. It is difficult to conclude that the lessee of the apartment of this case, including the Plaintiffs, etc., including the Defendant, has to cancel the disposition of this case and conclude a new pre-sale contract based on the legitimate procedure and method, it is difficult to conclude that the pre-sale conversion price may cause serious confusion, even if the Defendant asserted for reasons for cancellation of the disposition of this case without proper measures.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

5. Conclusion

The lawsuits of plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are unlawful. Thus, they are dismissed, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims except the above plaintiffs are reasonable. It is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges

The number of lectures (Presiding Judge)

Ethical police officer

Ise Jina

Note tin

1) Plaintiff U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AAB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AP, Q, AR, ATR, ATS, ATS, AU, AU, AV;

AW, AX, AY,

Site of separate sheet

List of Plaintiffs

(Release of List of Plaintiffs)

Acts and subordinate statutes;

▣ 구 임대주택법(2013. 3. 23. 법률 제11690호로 개정되기 전의 것 )

Article 21 (Preferential Conversion for Sale in Lots of Constructed-Rental Housing)

(1) A rental business operator shall obtain approval for a project plan pursuant to Article 16 of the Housing Act after the expiration of the mandatory rental period.

Construction or construction with funding from the National Housing Fund pursuant to Article 60 of the Housing Act among the constructed housing;

Where rental housing to be built on a housing site created by a public project is converted for sale in lots, the following:

Any lessee who falls under any of the above shall be converted for sale in preference.

1. A lessee who has resided in the relevant rental house from the date of occupancy to the date of conversion for sale in lots;

(3) Where a rental business operator intends to convert constructed rental housing into parcelling-out under paragraphs (1) and (2), he/she shall do so.

Local governments, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, or local public corporations shall be excluded herefrom.

Documents attached and submitted to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and approval for conversion for sale in lots (hereinafter referred to as "sale in lots").

Any transfer agent shall file an application.

(4) The head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall, upon receipt of an application for approval for conversion for sale in lots, grant approval within 30 days.

In such cases, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall succeed to the pre-sale conversion price prescribed by Presidential Decree under paragraph (10).

and shall not mediate or modify it.

(3) Appraisal for calculation of pre-sale conversion price shall be made on the condition that the applicant bears expenses.

The head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall select and implement an appraisal corporation, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(c) Any rental business operator or any successor, falling under the matters prescribed by Presidential Decree with respect to appraisal and assessment;

A lessee (where a council of lessees' representatives is organized, the council of lessees' representatives);

(2) If an objection is filed, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall do so, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) A re-evaluation may be conducted only once.

(1) The method and procedure for conversion of constructed rental housing into preferential sale pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (9) for sale in lots.

Matters necessary for prices, prices, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

▣ 구 임대주택법 시행령(2013. 3. 23 . 대통령령 제24443호로 개정되기 전의 것 )

Article 13 (Obligatory Lease Period, etc. of Rental Housing)

(1) "Period prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 16 (1) 4 of the Act means the period classified as follows:

between them means between them;

1. Quasi-public rental housing: Ten years from the commencement date of lease;

2. Other rental housing: Five years from the commencement date of lease.

Article 23 (Appraisal, etc. for Calculation of Price for Conversion for Sale in Lots)

(1) Pursuant to Article 21 (9) of the Act, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall publicly announce and reduce the appraisal of real estate pursuant to the Act

The standards publicly announced by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act;

adequate appraisal corporations (including the Korea Appraisal Board under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act)

c. It shall be entrusted to two places (hereinafter referred to as "appraisals").

(2) An appraisal corporation entrusted with an appraisal under paragraph (1) shall be a rental business operator or lessee (representative of lessee).

Where a meeting is organized, a meeting of lessees' representatives refers to the meeting of lessees' representatives) requests to select an appraisal corporation.

The evaluation shall be assessed on the basis of one day.

(3) An appraisal corporation shall complete an appraisal within 20 days from the date it has been entrusted with an appraisal under paragraph (1).

shall be held: Provided, That where there is any inevitable reason recognized by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, it shall be held

The period may be extended by up to ten days.

(4) An objection filed under the proviso to Article 21 (9) of the Act shall be notified to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu of the results of appraisal.

within 30 days from the date of receipt.

(5) "Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 21 (9) of the Act means any of the following cases:

1. Where an appraisal is conducted in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

2. Where it is deemed that an evaluation has been made unfairly.

(8) Publicly constructed rental houses (public structures referred to in subparagraphs of Article 13 (5)) pursuant to Article 21 (1) through (9) of the Act.

Where public constructed rental housing is converted for sale (excluding public constructed rental housing), the criteria, method, and method for calculating pre-sale conversion price;

Necessary matters concerning procedures, etc. other than those provided for in paragraphs (1) through (7) shall be caused by the Minister of Land, Transport

shall be determined by the Regulations.

▣ 구 임대주택법 시행규칙(2013. 12. 5. 국토교통부령 제44호로 개정되기 전의 것 )

Article 9 (Standards for Calculation of Price for Conversion for Sale in Lots)

(1) Criteria for calculating the pre-sale conversion price of publicly constructed rental housing under Article 13 (5) of the Decree shall be as specified in attached Table 1.

Criteria for calculation of conversion price for sale of publicly constructed rental housing (related to Article 9)

Calculation

A person with approval authority

1. The pre-sale conversion price shall not exceed the appraised value if the pre-sale conversion price is calculated for ten years. However, if the mandatory lease period is five years, the pre-sale conversion price shall be the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value, but shall not exceed the amount calculated by subtracting the depreciation costs during the lease period from the appraised value of the relevant housing at the time of conversion of ownership based on the construction cost of rental housing and housing site cost (hereinafter referred to as "calculated value");

under this section

2) Where rental housing units 20 or 20 or more units are converted for sale in the same complex, housing units subject to appraisal may be determined in consideration of the building, size, floor, direction, etc. within 10 percent of the number of housing units or households subject to conversion for sale in lots. 3) Where the highest appraised value exceeds 110 percent of the lowest appraised value, it shall be revaluated. In such cases, the rental business operator or lessee may request the entrusted institution under Article 81 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act to conduct a feasibility study on the relocation of revaluation. 4) Other matters concerning the selection of housing units and objections, etc. shall be governed by Articles 21 (9) and 23 of the Decree. (c) Construction cost at the time of conversion for sale in lots + Interest rate of construction cost at the time of sale in lots x construction cost of housing units x construction cost of housing units x construction cost at the same amount as construction cost and construction cost of housing units as that of non-building in lots:

Application

Standards

Housing:

100 Sector

Expenses

(e) Where an advance payment for housing construction is added or reduced due to the amendment of Acts and subordinate statutes, municipal ordinances, etc. related to the construction of rental housing, a rental business operator may add such expenses to the standard construction cost or reduce the standard construction cost. (f) Other items to be added to the construction cost are as follows: (i) Where a rental business operator is a house constructed in a lump sum, the standard construction cost (ii) within five percent of the standard construction cost (where housing is constructed in an island area under Article 2 of the Islands Development Promotion Act, 3 (3) of the standard construction cost shall be added to the installation cost of facilities for common use of food wastes under Article 15 of the Wastes Control Act (4) within the period of initial announcement of construction cost by a local government-invested public corporation (excluding items (5)) or an occupant of the housing site under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, other than the average construction cost of the State and local government-invested public institutions, for the purpose of expanding the construction cost of the housing site or the construction cost of the housing site under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as "public announcement of construction cost"):

(3) Other items that may be added to the cost of the housing site in the housing site owned by the business entity (referred to as "expenses that may prove that they are related to the housing site") are as follows. In such cases, items that may be assessed and assessed including the appraisal and assessment, and items that are difficult to appraise may be added under the circumstances of the business entity authorized to approve project plans. (1) The cost of installing arterial facilities (2) to be incorporated into the construction of access roads pursuant to Article 23 of the Housing Act (3) the cost of removing obstacles (4) and other expenses that may prove that they are related to the housing site:

참조조문

-공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률

-공동주택 분양가격의 산정 등에 관한 규칙

-임대주택법 시행령 제13조 제1항 제2호

-임대주택법 시행령 제16조 제1항 제4호