The meaning of "where the owner of the relevant house has moved to another area while residing in the relevant area" under Article 6 (3) 2 of the Rules on Housing Supply.

The legislative intent and purpose of Article 6 (3) 2 of the Rules on Housing Supply; the history and content of the enactment and amendment; the meaning and content of the language and text; and the contents that the above provisions consider as not owning a house exceptionally even if they own a house; thus, there is a need to strictly interpret the exception. Since considerable part of the population of the Republic of Korea is formed mainly by a household residing in a city or a corresponding area due to moving the residence to a non-urban area or to an area other than a city, with a focus on the demand of a house. Accordingly, the housing policy has an emphasis on facilitating the supply of a house in an urban area, etc. corresponding thereto; as prescribed by the above provision, the house is constructed in an area other than a city area or an administrative district (excluding a Seoul Metropolitan area) of a non-urban area and moves to another area while residing in an urban area, and in particular, the house is constructed in an area where it satisfies a certain requirement, and thus, it can be easily interpreted that the owner of the house in question has the same meaning in light of the social and economic situation and other cases where it comes to have the same type of residence.

Rule 6(3)2 of the Housing Supply Rules

Plaintiff

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Attorney Ansan-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu13700 decided December 28, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The key issues of the instant case

Article 6 (3) 2 of the Rules on Housing Supply (hereinafter “the instant provision”) provides that “Where the owner of the following housing constructed in an area other than an urban area or a Si/Gun’s administrative district (excluding the Seoul Metropolitan area) and has resided in the relevant housing construction area (in the case of acquisition of a house by inheritance, it shall be deemed that the decedent has resided therein), and moves to another housing construction area” shall not be deemed to have owned a house (in light of the purport of the instant provision and the provisions of subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the said Rules, “the relevant housing construction area” means the administrative district of the Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, or a Si/Gun where the housing falling under any of the following items is located, and “other housing construction area” means the administrative district of another Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, or a Si/Gun, which means the administrative district of another Special Metropolitan City, or a Si/Gun). The housing corresponding thereto provides for “the first house after the approval for use has elapsed for not less than 20 years,” from item (a) to (b) "the first detached house or the owner of a detached house under Act:

2. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the first instance acknowledged facts based on the adopted evidence, and presumed that the provision of this case was a provision to prevent unreasonable conduct which makes it impossible to promote stability in the residential life by excluding from the subject of supply of housing due to the reason that the owner of a house unrelated to real estate speculation owns such house, and losing an opportunity for house construction. Therefore, there is no reason to deal with the ownership of the house after the person who owned the house unrelated to real estate speculation and relocated to another area, residing in such a house, and relocated to another area, and then the person who acquired the ownership of the house was no longer residing in the house corresponding to one of the following items, and the purport of the provision to consider the person who acquired the ownership of the house as a homeless person by inheritance can be justified in consideration of the purport of the provision to consider the person who acquired the ownership of the house as a homeless person. Accordingly, since the owner of the house falling under any of the provisions of this case (hereinafter referred to as “relevant house”) does not necessarily have to own the house at the time of residence in the area, and the following issue of this case.

3. The judgment of this Court

However, the above judgment of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

The legislative purport and purpose of the provision of this case are the history of the enactment and amendment, the meaning of the language and text, and the meaning of the provision of this case to be deemed as not owning a house exceptionally. It is generally necessary to interpret the exception strictly. Since considerable population of Korea moves into a city or an area other than a city, and demand for a house is formed mainly by a household residing in the urban area, etc., and accordingly, housing policies have priority in providing a house smoothly in response thereto in an urban area, etc., and as stated in the key issue of this case, it is constructed in the "area other than an urban area or an administrative district (excluding Seoul Metropolitan area)" to acquire a house and move into another area without housing construction, and it is difficult to interpret that the house is not owned by an heir to have the same meaning as if it were constructed in an area other than an urban area or an administrative district (excluding Seoul Metropolitan area) where the owner acquired the house without housing construction, and thus, it is difficult to view the house as an exceptional situation where the owner does not own it to have another residential area or a similar meaning.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the interpretation of Article 6 (3) 2 of the "Rules on Housing Supply" and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)