When a member of the housing association must meet the requirements for the principle of homeless generation.

The public announcement date referred to in Article 4 (1) of the Rules on Housing Supply, which provides the requirements for a person subject to housing supply, shall not be interpreted as the authorization date for the establishment of a housing association, and the concept of the public announcement date shall not be presented in the nature of the case where the housing association supplies the housing to its members, while it is difficult to present it, in the case of joining the housing association, the status of the right to move into the housing at the time when the business plan determined as the person subject to housing

Article 47(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 4(1) of the Rules on Housing Supply

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 9Da2475 delivered on October 20, 1992

The judgment below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The gist of the defendant's grounds for appeal (which was submitted by the defendant on March 3, 1993 and on the 22th of the same month, is to be determined within the scope of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for appeal) is that the defendant was a member of the Korea Communications Corporation, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and even if he owned 1102 houses until April 21, 1989, the court below determined that the defendant was affiliated with the workplace housing association for the homeless of the above Corporation established on April 28, 1989, and that the above association was purchased in lots 103 1601 in Songpa-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and the above association was not entitled to open the housing association under the Housing Construction Promotion Act (which is an unlawful provision of the Housing Construction Promotion Act) and that the housing association's establishment and operation should not be interpreted as being in violation of the above provision of Article 4 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and the housing association's establishment and operation of the Housing Association, which is a non-permanent housing association.

Article 3 subparagraph 9 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act in relation to a housing association (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") lists three local associations, workplace associations, and reconstruction associations as a type of housing association, and the concept of association established by an employee who does not own a house in the same workplace to acquire a house. In addition, Article 44 (2) of the Act provides that the housing association shall determine necessary matters concerning the method of establishment of a housing association, etc., and Article 44 (3) of the Act shall be deemed as a project undertaker under the same Act and Article 32 of the Act provides that Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, which is the Presidential Decree of Article 44 (2) of the Act, shall comply with the terms, methods, and procedures of housing supply as prescribed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation in order to maintain order in supplying a house. Article 32 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act does not impose any special restrictions on the qualifications of a housing association members, but Article 3 of the Rules on Housing Supply, which is a housing association under Article 32 of the Act, shall be limited to a housing association resident in the relevant region.

In light of the above, the court below's decision is equivalent to the date of the public announcement of invitation of occupants under Article 4 (1) of the above Rule, and the above Seoul Metropolitan Government's guidelines also have the same purport. Thus, in the case where a person who did not meet the requirements of "non-household owners" prior to one year prior to the date of the authorization of establishment of the housing association joins the association and purchases a house constructed and supplied by the association, it can be found guilty of the facts charged in this case against the defendant. However, the term "date of public announcement of invitation of occupants" under Article 4 (1) of the Rules is difficult to present in the nature of the case where the housing association supplies the house constructed for its members to the members, and the above provision does not have a clear provision that the time is regarded as the date of public announcement of invitation of occupants. Meanwhile, the Seoul Metropolitan Government's guidelines and the contents of the housing association's internal affairs concerning the housing association, so long as the housing association is supplied with a house externally due to the nature of the above provision and it does not have any effect.

However, the purpose of the Housing Construction Promotion Act was to prescribe matters necessary for the construction, supply, financing, operation, etc. of the housing (Article 1) in order to ensure the stability of housing life for the people without the Housing Construction Promotion Act and to improve the housing standards for all citizens (Article 1); Article 3 Subparag. 9 of the Act provides that a workplace union shall be an association established by an employee who does not own a house in the same workplace (i.e., to acquire a house); and Article 51 Subparag. 6 and Article 47(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act provides that a housing association shall be supplied or allowed to be supplied with a house under Article 51 Subparag. 6 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act when the status of the right to move into a house supplied by a project owner becomes final and conclusive, and if a housing association is admitted, the status of the right to move into a house shall be determined at least when the project plan for the occupancy is approved (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2991, Jan. 26, 1993).

In this case, in full view of the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the statement of the suspect examination protocol on the defendant prepared by the judicial police assistant, resident registration (section 44), resident registration transcript (section 30-33) and certified copy of the register (section 30-33), etc., the defendant first sold the defendant's name to another on April 21, 1989 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 16 of the same year, and the defendant was affiliated with the Korea Communications Corporation. The above housing association was authorized by the head of Songpa-gu Seoul National Police Agency as the above construction approval authority on April 28, 1989, and thereafter approved the above construction project plan on September 29 of the same year, and thereafter, the defendant had already occupied the above apartment house under the name of 103 Dong-dong, Songpa-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul and it was difficult to recognize that the defendant had already occupied the above apartment house under the name of 1631,291.

If so, the court below should have pronounced innocence against the defendant, and the court below's judgment which found the defendant guilty on the contrary shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the interpretation of the law or misunderstanding the facts, and therefore, the above appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

The summary of the facts charged of this case (the amendment of indictment on the second trial date of the original trial) is that the defendant owned 1102 long-term apartment 102 prior to April 21, 1989 as an employee of the Korea Communications Corporation and was not homeless for not less than one year as of the date on which the establishment of the housing association was authorized to be established on April 28, 1989, and supplied housing by fraudulent or other unlawful means by acquiring the above 103 1601 old-dong modern apartment 1601 constructed by the association. As shown in the reversal of the above reasons, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of

Judges Jeong-ho (Presiding Judge)