A. Determination as to whether a “non-family owner of a house” under the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Rules on Housing Supply

(b)qualification requirements for workplace association members;

C. Whether it violates the good faith principle in the case of expulsion after completing the allocation of apartment to disqualified partners

(d) The case holding that a voluntary sale agreement with an unqualified partner is null and void because it violates good morals and other social order as an act of violating the regulation by a conspiracy;

A. According to the relevant laws and regulations such as Article 1, Article 24, Article 44(1) and (6), Article 44-2, Article 47(1) and (2), Article 51 subparag. 6, and Article 32 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530, Dec. 8, 192), the issue of whether a “non-family housing owner” as provided in the proviso of Article 4(1) of the same Rule is determined by whether a “non-family housing owner” is written as the ownership of a house in the building register unless there are special circumstances.

B. In light of the relevant laws and regulations such as Article 3 subparag. 9 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act and Articles 4 and 17 of the Regulations on Housing Supply, it is required to establish a housing association at least to become a member of a workplace union and to have a homeless household from the time when he/she becomes a member of the housing association

(c) It shall not be readily concluded that the housing association has been expelled after the completion of the apartment building as its members for a considerable period of time, and after the completion of the apartment building, it constitutes a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of rights.

D. Article 3 subparag. 9 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (Article 4(1) of the Rules on Housing Supply, etc., which cannot be excluded from the application of the said provisions by the intention of the parties concerned, even if the act of trading in violation of the said regulations cannot be deemed null and void. Thus, the said provision should be deemed null and void, not an effective regulation. However, in the event that the parties commit a juristic act in violation of the enforcement regulations through a conspiracy, it shall be deemed a juristic act with the content of matters in violation of good morals and other social order. Thus, the agreement that the housing association voluntarily sold an apartment to an unqualified member regardless of the validity of the expulsion, is null and void as a juristic act in contravention of social order

A.B. Article 3 subparag. 9 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992); Article 4 and Article 17(c) of the Rules on Housing Supply; Article 2(d) of the Civil Act; Article 103 of the Civil Act

(b) Supreme Court Decision 92Da49027 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2392) b. Supreme Court Decision 93Do267 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1761)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korean Investment Trust Corporation Busan District Housing Association

Busan District Court Decision 92Na10989 delivered on December 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The court below held that the defendant's association was established with the approval of the housing association on June 23, 1989 by workers such as the plaintiff, etc., and constructed apartment houses on the ground of 1027-1 et al., Busan Geum-gu, 2, 1027-1, and allocated Dong-hos to union members including the plaintiff by lot on December 14, 1991, and the plaintiff was notified by the head of Busan Jin-gu on April 6, 191 (it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the regulations of January 30, 1992) that the plaintiff is not a non-resident, and therefore, the plaintiff was expelled from the association on February 2, 198. The court below's decision that the plaintiff sold his house to the non-party 1, 198, to the non-party 1, as stated in the proviso of Article 4 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's order was invalid after the plaintiff's request.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 3 subparagraph 9 of the Act and Articles 4 and 17 of the "Rules", the court below held that it is reasonable to interpret that the establishment of the housing association is required to be required for the homeless from the time when the association becomes a partner to the time when the association becomes a partner. In light of the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, the above determination of the court below is just (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do267 delivered on May 14, 1993), and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the qualifications of the housing association, such as the theory of lawsuit by the court below, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The defendant's association cannot be the subject of a confession in court, so it cannot accept the argument that there is an error of law in violation of the principle of pleading by recognizing facts different from the facts which the parties led to confession in the judgment below.

4. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

The court below determined that the defendant's housing association treated the plaintiff as its members for a long time, completed the apartment building and ordered the plaintiff to remove the plaintiff, and thus it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff constitutes a violation of the principle of trust and good faith or an abuse of rights. In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to abuse of rights, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

5. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 5

The court below held that since the defendant's housing association agreed to sell the above apartment to the plaintiff voluntarily, regardless of the validity of the expulsion, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is in the position of selling the above apartment house from the defendant's housing association, the above voluntary sale agreement was made in violation of the provisions of Articles 7 through 12 of the "Rules" that the tenant should be selected by open recruitment in the case of supplying not less than 20 households with the above procedure and method, and it was null and void because it violates the mandatory provisions of Article 3 subparagraph 9 of the "Rules" and Article 4 (1) of the "Rules" that stipulate that the non-resident should be a member of the workplace association as a requirement for becoming a member of the workplace association.

According to the records, although it is evident that the plaintiff's association members of the defendant's association are 19 members and that the defendant's association did not clearly dispute the facts, it is obvious that the decision of the court below is erroneous as the theory of lawsuit. In addition, Article 3 subparagraph 9 (b) of the "Act" Article 4 (1) of the "Rules" is a mandatory law that cannot be excluded from the application of the above provisions, as decided by the court below, it cannot be deemed as null and void merely because it is a transaction violating the above provisions, and since it is obviously clear that the defendant's association did not dispute the above facts regarding the treatment of those persons who violated the provisions of Articles 6 (7) and 17 (3) of the "Rules" and Article 47 (1) of the "Act" (the "Rules No. 4540 of Feb. 24, 1993, which is amended as Act No. 4540, and it should be viewed that the above provisions of the court below's decision were invalid as 194.

Ultimately, we cannot accept the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the voluntary sale of housing of partnership.

6. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)