Whether Article 15(1)1 of the Rental Housing Act regarding the right to preferentially sell a rental house can be deemed as a lessee, in cases where an elderly person who is an end-user of the rental house, has entered into a lease contract in his/her own name with his/her own money under the name of his/her parent because the elderly person was unable to find the Korea National Housing Corporation directly due to the outbreak of illness in his/her place of homeless person, and only lives in the rental house

In a case where an elderly person who is the actual user of a rental house, lives alone in the rental house after entering into a lease contract under the name of his/her father because he/she was unable to find the Korea National Housing Corporation directly due to the outbreak of sick conditions by his/her wife and thus, he/she was in charge of his/her own money, the fact that Article 15 (1) 1 of the Rental Housing Act sets the lessee who actually resided in the rental house as the requirements for giving priority to the actual user in the sale of limited resources is that it is for the purpose of giving priority to the actual user in the sale of resources. The resident’s father’s establishment of a lease contract for his/her father’s residence in his/her name does not intend to gain any benefit or avoid legal regulation. However, considering the fact that the resident’s residential stability was within the objective and scope of protection under the Rental Housing Act from the beginning to the point of view that it appears that he/she had been committed because he/she did not have accurate knowledge and information about the legal rights, it should be regarded as a lessee.

Article 15 (1) 1 of the Rental Housing Act

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Young-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other ( Daejeon General Law Firm, Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2005Da40737 Decided December 20, 2005

September 27, 2006

1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Defendant 1 ordered the Plaintiff to the 393 main apartment (Dongh Ho-dong omitted) in Yeongi-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. Defendant 2 moved out of the above apartment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Grounds for the dispute and the progress up to the judgment of the case;

A. The Plaintiff Corporation, while carrying out a business of newly constructing and leasing apartment-type rental housing in the Sinnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff Corporation concluded a lease agreement with Defendant 1 on February 19, 199 on a five-year term of lease with Defendant 1 on February 19, 199.

B. Defendant 2, as the father of Defendant 1, occupied the above rental house on June 1, 199, and lives alone until now. Defendant 1, as the second father of Defendant 2, was living separately after marriage on September 16, 198, and did not move into the above rental house.

C. Upon the lapse of the mandatory rental period under the Rental Housing Act, the Plaintiff Corporation decided to convert the entire rental housing for sale in lots. Article 15(1)1 of the Rental Housing Act provides that “A lessee who has resided in the relevant rental housing from the date of occupancy to the date of sale in lots, who is a homeless person who has resided in the relevant rental housing at the time of sale in lots,” and Defendant 1, a lessee of the rental housing, could not purchase the relevant rental housing due to the ownership of another house. Defendant 2: (a) The title owner of the rental housing was merely married and actually leased for his own residence, and (b) requested the Plaintiff to sell the rental housing in his name on his own account that he had resided in the rental housing; (c) the Plaintiff refused the request on the ground that Defendant 2 was not a lessee under a contract, and (d) the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants

D. The Plaintiff Corporation filed the instant lawsuit claiming the withdrawal of the rental housing in the rental housing against Defendant 1, a lessee under a lease agreement, and against Defendant 2, who resides in the rental housing. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff Corporation’s claim, and the Defendants appealed against it, and accordingly, the instant case was tried by this court.

E. As a result of the hearing by this court, the reasons and circumstances for Defendant 2 to move to the name of Defendant 1, who is his/her father, instead of having his/her residence in his/her own name, were revealed as follows.

(1) Defendant 2 was born on April 15, 1931 and was born to the age of 75 as of January 13, 195, and he was married to the Non-Party and brought about her father and son and son. The non-party, his wife, around 1991, left a serious post-explosion to the extent that her husband and son were not able to be able to be able to her husband and son and son. Since the early 199's illness aggravated to the extent that her husband and son were completely unable to her husband and son, the other son and son were sent to the Non-Party 2, who were born to the Non-Party 1 and her son and son were not able to live together with the Non-Party 1 and her son and her son and her son and her son and her son and her son and her son and her son were not able to live together with the Defendant 194.

(2) On the beginning of 1999, when the wife aggravated, and she did not go beyond the area of diving, and Defendant 2 asked Defendant 1 to enter into a lease agreement with his/her husband after hearing the awareness of the Plaintiff’s construction and lease of rental housing in the neighboring area. Defendant 2 was living almost all of his/her life in the area of the YY-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and was living in the area of the YY-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and Defendant 1, his/her dependent, together with his/her family members, was living in the area of the YY-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

(3) Defendant 1, upon his father’s request, entered into a lease agreement on rental housing under the name of the father. Defendant 1 explained the following as to the process of concluding the lease agreement under his/her own name. Defendant 1 explained to the employees of the Plaintiff 1, who were neither his/her father nor his/her father, who was superior to the Plaintiff 1’s employees in whose name the terms of the lease agreement was entered into. Since a lot of time has elapsed, it seems impossible for Defendant 1 to present this explanation, who was the employee of the Plaintiff 1, and who was the employee of the Plaintiff 2, to clearly explain the fact that it was not possible for Defendant 1 to enter into the lease agreement under his/her name on behalf of Defendant 2, who was not the father, and that it was not possible for Defendant 1 to have concluded the lease agreement under his/her own name for the purpose of preparing the lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff 1. However, it appears that it was not easy for Defendant 1 to have concluded the lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff 2, who was not equipped with the legal knowledge of the time and effort to prepare the agreement.

[Certificate] Evidence No. 1-1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 3-1, Evidence No. 1-8, Evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

The plaintiff claimed against the defendant 1 for the surrender of the rental housing and the eviction of the rental housing from the defendant 2 on the ground that the term of the lease contract has expired and the rental housing has not been converted for sale in lots.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that it is not permissible for the Plaintiff Corporation to refuse to sell the rental housing and to request the Defendants to surrender and leave the rental housing because they merely hear and take out the wrong explanations from the employee in charge of the Plaintiff Corporation, and Defendant 2 is a real party to the lease contract, and have the right to purchase the rental housing as a homeless person.

As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that the right to preferential sale under Article 15 of the Rental Housing Act is granted to only the lessee who is a homeless, and Defendant 2 is not a lessee, and thus, he did not have the right to preferential sale. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is unreasonable.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The key issue of this case is whether Defendant 2 has the right to preferentially sell rental housing under Article 15 of the Rental Housing Act, and if we look more specifically, it satisfies the requirements of “Lessees who have resided in the relevant rental house from the date of occupancy to the date of sale for sale for sale in lots” under Article 15(1)1 of the said Act, which is the requirement for the establishment of the right that “non-leaseds who have resided in the relevant rental house from the date of sale in lots.” With regard to the determination of legal issues, this Court has paid attention to the following

(1) The legislative body established the Rental Housing Act to support the rental housing business and, while supporting the rental housing business, aims to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure the stability of national housing conditions (Article 1 of the said Act). Our society has a considerable demand to rent housing due to the individual’s diverse circumstances, on the other hand, there is a lack of supply of rental housing at all times due to such reasons as requiring a long time to recover investment amounts. In addition, due to the economic and practical reasons, it is difficult for those who have no money to rent a house, and it is difficult for them to purchase a house for long-term rental. Accordingly, the legislative body prepared various institutional devices to increase the supply of rental housing by supporting a housing lessor who engages in the business of rental housing through the Rental Housing Act, and to provide insufficient rental housing to the end-user.

Therefore, we believe that this Act should be fully taken into account the above public interest purpose in interpreting and applying this Act. In addition, the existence of the Plaintiff Korea National Housing Corporation, which accounts for the largest share in the construction and rental business of rental housing in our society, is the reason for the public interest of stabilizing the lives of people and promoting public welfare (Article 1 of the Korea National Housing Corporation Act).

(2) Article 15(1)1 of the Rental Housing Act provides that, while opening a way for a housing lessor to make a conversion of a rental house for sale in lots after the mandatory rental period and to recover investment funds at a time, a person who satisfies certain requirements shall be guaranteed the right to preferential sale of housing and life. Article 15(1)1 of the Rental Housing Act provides that “non-resident who has resided in the relevant rental house from the date of occupancy to the date of sale in lots” as the requirements for the right to preferential sale in lots. This Act stipulates that “non-family housing is for the purpose of taking into consideration the ordinary people who have not yet owned a house in selling limited resources, and the requirements for a lessee who has actually resided therein are for the purpose of giving preferential consideration to the actual users in selling limited resources. Therefore, the meaning of “Lessee” as referred to in the above provision is clarified, and in this case, the purpose of the above provision should be fully considered in determining whether Defendant 2 is a lessee

(3) The purpose of this case’s rental contract was to seek a housing space of Defendant 2, and the purpose of this case’s rental contract was not to seek a housing space for Defendant 1. The person who decided to reside in this case’s rental contract was Defendant 2 and the funds paid as security deposit was also his own. However, due to urgent circumstances where Defendant 2 was unable to leave his wife’s bottle, the office of the Plaintiff Corporation did not directly enter into a lease contract under his own name and requested Defendant 1 to enter into a lease contract for his father’s residence. In this case, Defendant 1 did not intend to gain any benefit or avoid legal regulation while entering into a lease contract for father’s residence under his name. In light of these circumstances, the conclusion of the lease contract in his name, other than his father’s name, by Defendant 1 did not have accurate knowledge and information on the legal rights.

If Defendant 2 did not intervene above, there is no doubt as to the fact that Defendant 2 would have the right to preferentially sell rental housing. Defendant 2 is a senior citizen living alone in the age of 75 years. Defendant 2 has lost the ability to engage in economic activities and has no sufficient financial capacity. Defendant 2, who is in these circumstances, cannot have the right to continue residing in this subject and its residential space because of the small number of rooms in the course of entering into a lease agreement with Defendant 2, who was in the course of entering into the lease agreement, may not be said to have lost the balance between the mistake on the part of the Defendants caused, and the result.

(4) The fact that the word “Lessee” as a legal term refers to a party who borrows real estate between the parties to a lease agreement, is well known even if there is no law. However, in order to ensure the proper meaning of the language and text of the lease agreement, not only the meaning as a legal term, but also the value that our society intends to achieve through the entire legal system as well as the policy objective and the value that our society intends to achieve through the entire legal system. From the perspective of the policy objective to achieve the said Act as well as the plan intended under the said Act, it is not thought that Defendant 2’s residential stability was within the scope of the said policy objective and plan from the beginning to the point of view of the policy objective and the plan intended under the said Act. The interpretation and enforcement of the language used to clarify the policy purpose and plan is not justifiable.

From the perspective of such legal interpretation, even though Defendant 2 was homeless and was the actual user of the instant rental housing, it is not thought that the denial of his right is consistent with the purpose and plan of the public interest of this Act, on the ground that he was not a lessee under a lease agreement due to the special circumstances as seen above. Rather, in exceptional cases such as this case, it is not a literal and legal interpretation of the lessee’s requirements under this Act, but in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as this, it is deemed that Defendant 2, who can be sufficiently conceptualized as a lessee in light of the purpose and financial burden of the lease agreement and the practical aspect of the actual resident, satisfies the requirements under the above law.

(5) The highest and deep person is also unable to expect and prepare for all three companies. The law, which was made most deep and deep, is also difficult to provide clear and clear guidelines for justice in all three companies. Since the law is a kind of instrument that predicts and creates a variety of issues that may arise in the future in advance, the law is creating a variety of types of clothes that may occur in the future, so that they are going about or short in the future, even though they are expected. The mere fact that it is not consistent with the pre-established size of clothes does not fit for the pre-established size, so it is difficult to say that the arm's length is too too long or short in the past? Whether we can extend or reduce the length of clothes even if it is somewhat complicated? We think we have the duty of interpretation and enforcement of the law created by the legislative division and have the authority to repair it to some extent. We think that the law will have the original meaning of the Constitution, not the law that is to be revised by the National Assembly, but the law will have the original meaning of the Constitution.

B. In interpreting the meaning of “Lessee” under Article 15(1)1 of the Rental Housing Act, the three judges constituting this Court, taking into account the above facts into account: (a) it should be interpreted as a lessee with a substantial meaning taking into account special and exceptional circumstances such as the instant case; and (b) it is reasonable that Defendant 2 satisfies the requirements of a tenant in its substantial sense; and therefore, (c) Defendant 2 has the right to preferentially sell the instant rental housing.

C. When this court seeks the possibility of conciliation on both sides of the instant case, the Plaintiff Corporation expressed its view that it could not respond to conciliation on the ground that, considering the special circumstances of Defendant 2 and the fact that the sale of the rental housing could be a bad precedent claiming the sale without any basis by the persons having similar circumstances in the future. We cannot agree with this view. We do not agree with this view. This decision is not a bad precedent that prevents the public interest policy objectives that the Rental Housing Act intends to achieve, but rather is a good precedent that enables it to achieve the policy goals and plans of the Rental Housing Act by granting the term used by the Rental Housing Act, in exceptional and special cases, by giving practical and substantial living significance to the term used by the Rental Housing Act. Rather, if we understand the meaning of the terms used by the said Act only formally, it would only be possible to achieve the policy goals and plans of the said Act only in ordinary cases, and at any time in various exceptional cases that may arise in our society at any time in the future.

가을 들녘에는 황금물결이 일고, 집집마다 감나무엔 빨간 감이 익어 간다. 가을걷이에 나선 농부의 입가엔 노랫가락이 흘러나오고, 바라보는 아낙의 얼굴엔 웃음꽃이 폈다. 홀로 사는 칠십 노인을 집에서 쫓아내 달라고 요구하는 원고의 소장에서는 찬바람이 일고, 엄동설한에 길가에 나앉을 노인을 상상하는 이들의 눈가엔 물기가 맺힌다.

All we believe that the interpretation and enforcement of the law should also have a hot chest, not only the head of the vehicle, but also the head of the vehicle, because they live in a society with a hot chest, rather than in the society with only the head of the vehicle. In this case, our view is that only the only chest who is based on this case is not a part of the defendants, but also the head of the vehicle is in their parts.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, as long as Defendant 2 has the right to preferentially sell the instant rental housing and he/she requests the Plaintiff to sell it in lots by exercising his/her right, Defendant 2’s refusal of such request and the Plaintiff’s request for evacuation and eviction from the Defendants on the ground of the expiration of the lease agreement period is impermissible under law

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case shall be dismissed, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, it shall be revoked and all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)