2014Guhap4922 Revocation of Disposition of Correction

Korea Land Trust Corporation

Main Market

September 18, 2015

October 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On July 9, 2014, the defendant revoked the corrective order of the acquisition of multi-family housing management business against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 196, the Plaintiff, as a rental business operator, completed the instant apartment in around 2002 after obtaining approval for the project plan regarding the new construction of 505 households, Cheongcheon-gu, Hanju-si, 1517-3, 1517-3 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On December 18, 2002, the Plaintiff received a pre-use inspection from the Defendant as a rental housing.

B. On December 26, 2009, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s application for conversion for sale in lots, and accordingly, the Plaintiff sold 79 households among 505 households of the instant apartment until April 2012. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the unsold 426 households among the instant apartment units with Nonparty 1, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and agreed to comprehensively succeed to the Plaintiff’s rental business status.

D. On April 10, 2014, the council of occupants' representatives of the instant apartment was notified by the Defendant of the acceptance of the report on the composition, etc. of the council of occupants' representatives, and requested the Plaintiff to transfer the management of the instant apartment to the Daesung Housing Management Co., Ltd., a housing management operator, on April 18, 2014. However, the Plaintiff rejected it while it had already been transferred to the non-party company the management of the instant apartment.

E. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to take over the management affairs of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, as the business entity of the instant apartment, was obligated to take over the management affairs of the instant apartment pursuant to Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act. The Plaintiff was served on July 15, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the instant apartment is a leased apartment, the Plaintiff is a rental business operator and does not fall under the business entity or the management entity under the Housing Act, Article 43 of the Housing Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act applied to the business entity under the Housing Act as a provision on the acquisition and transfer of apartment management affairs. The Plaintiff sells the housing unsold in lots to the non-party company, while at the same time, it is clearly expressed in the sales contract that the non-party company will succeed to the status of the rental business entity in accordance with Article 16(2) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12985, Jan. 6, 2015). Therefore, there is no obligation to take over the apartment management affairs.

In this case, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 43(6) of the Housing Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that "the project proprietor shall hand over the management affairs of the collective housing to the relevant management entity within one month when he/she is notified of the selection of the housing management operator by the council of occupants' representatives, and when he/she transfers the management affairs, he/she shall prepare a letter of acceptance and transfer and hand over the following documents." Meanwhile, Article 3(1) of the Rental Housing Act provides that the Housing Act shall apply to the matters not prescribed by this Act concerning the construction, supply and management of rental housing, and provides that the Rental Housing Act

In full view of the above provisions, Article 43 (6) of the Housing Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall apply unless there is any relevant provision in the Rental Housing Act in the transfer and takeover of the management affairs of rental housing.

In relation to the management entity under the Housing Act, Article 2 subparagraph 14 of the Housing Act includes a rental business operator under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12985, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Rental Housing Act"). Thus, in order for a rental business operator to change the management entity, a rental business operator shall undergo the process of transfer under Article 43 (6) of the Housing Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Furthermore, according to Article 2 subparagraph 7 (d) of the Housing Act in relation to a project operator under the Housing Act, a project operator shall obtain approval from

Since it is stipulated that a person who newly constructs rental housing after obtaining approval from an administrative agency for a housing construction project shall have the status of a lessee and a project proprietor under the Housing Act at the same time when he/she conducts rental business after registering as a rental business operator.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff is a business proprietor under the Housing Act, and at the same time constitutes a rental business proprietor under the former Rental Housing Act, and even though it did not undergo the transfer process to change the management entity under the Housing Act, the Plaintiff still has a duty to take over the instant apartment management business since it did not go through the transfer process to change the management entity under the Housing Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and Mapo-young

Judges Domincs

Judge Lee Jin-han

1) The Plaintiff still held that 79 households among the apartment buildings in this case were converted for sale in lots and do not constitute a rental business operator with respect to such part.

As long as he is a business entity of the strike, he/she has a duty to take over management affairs for that part.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.