1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the “judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion of the trial” under the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

A. The main point of the argument is that the instant house is a multi-household with a separate space, and the instant house is a multi-household with two households, and it is unlawful for the Defendant to refuse to provide a rental house to the Plaintiff, which had the lessee use it as an independent building in accordance with the special supply regulations. 2) The Defendant’s disposition is unlawful. According to Article 5(2) of the Special Supply Rules, “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), where the ownership of a multi-household house is newly acquired after changing it into a multi-household house after the date of the public inspection announcement for the implementation of the project, it shall be excluded from the subject of the special supply of the national housing.” However, in light of the wording that “multi-household house is newly acquired after its alteration into a multi-household house,” it can be deemed that the instant multi-household house has a separate space or multi-household house with the ownership of a new house after its alteration into a multi-household house. Therefore, it can be deemed that the instant multi-household house has a separate purpose of use under the Building Act.