The meaning of the “sub-lease of rental housing” prohibited by Article 19 of the former Rental Housing Act and whether the free loan for use is included therein (affirmative)

In full view of the legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”) and the qualifications, method of selection and conditions of lease, etc., the said Act strictly provides for the following: (a) lease of a rental house by unlawful means; (b) transfer of a right of lease; and (c) transfer of a right of lease prohibited under the said Act includes sale, donation, and all other acts (excluding inheritance) that entail the alteration of a right to a lease; and (d) the sublease of a rental house prohibited under Article 19 of the former Rental Housing Act refers to the act of a lessee re-using a rental house to a third party regardless of whether or not payment is made; and (e) a lessee is also entitled to a free loan as well as a commercial lease.

Articles 1 (see current Special Act on Private Rental Housing, Article 1 of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing, Article 1 of the Special Act on Public Housing, Article 49-4 of the current Special Act on Public Housing), Article 20 (1) (see current Special Act on Public Housing, Article 49 (1) of the current Special Act on Public Housing), and Article 41 (4) (see current Article 57-4 of the Special Act on Public Housing, Article 57-4 of the current Special Act on Public Housing), Article 18 (1) (see current Article 48 (1)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Rental Housing Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26499, Jul. 24, 2015)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Maximum Recognition

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No1349 decided October 20, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 1 of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”) provides for the standards for the terms and conditions of lease, such as the qualifications, method of selection, lease deposit, rent, etc., for the purpose of promoting the construction of rental housing and stabilizing the residential life of the people (Article 1); and Article 20(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act exceptionally prohibits the transfer and sub-lease of the right to lease of a lessee of a rental housing in principle (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26449, Jul. 24, 2015); and Article 18(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2649, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”) permits transfer and sub-lease only when a rental business operator has obtained the consent of the rental business operator (Article 19); lease or lease of a rental housing by fraud or other unlawful means; transfer or sub-lease of a rental housing (4).

In full view of the legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act and the aforementioned Act strictly stipulate the lessee’s qualification, method of selection, conditions of lease, etc., and the fact that the said Act is punished by prescribing the rental housing as a crime of lease, unauthorized transfer of the right of lease, sub-lease, and the transfer of the right of lease prohibited by the said Act includes sale, donation, and all other acts (except in case of inheritance) resulting from the change of rights, the sub-lease of the rental housing prohibited by Article 19 of the former Rental Housing Act refers to the act of the lessee to use the rental housing again and allow a third party to take profits from the rental housing regardless of whether or not the payment of the consideration is made. Therefore, it should be deemed that

In light of the above legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the sublease of rental housing under Article 19 of the former Rental Housing Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)