1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court's reasoning, except for the part which is dismissed or added as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Each “Lessee” in Section 7, No. 18 of the first instance judgment, which is dismissed or added, shall be appointed as “sub-lessee.”

Part 8 of the decision of the court of first instance added the following contents to the second part, and the third part of the decision of the court "(d)" is referred to as "e.g. theory".

Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act provides that Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a rental business operator who does not delegate the right of lease to the Rental Housing Act, despite the proviso of Article 19 of the Rental Housing Act’s assertion that Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act is unconstitutional and invalid. However, Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act provides that a rental business operator shall consent in the form of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act without delegation by the mother Act. This is in violation of the principle of statutory reservation or the principle of legal priority, and it excessively infringes on a rental business operator’s freedom of occupation and of property rights, which are fundamental rights under the Constitution. Therefore, Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act is unconstitutional and invalid.