A. Whether the title trustee of the housing falls under a non-homeowner under the Housing Construction Promotion Act

(b) The case holding that an expulsion of a member who failed to meet the requirements for the housing association is lawful;

A. Whether a person is homeless under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992) or not shall be determined based on the owner of the public record unless the cause is invalid or there are other special circumstances. Thus, the title trustee of the housing does not fall under a non-homeowner.

(b) The case holding that a housing association's expulsion of a member who failed to meet the above requirements is lawful, on the grounds that the member of the housing association satisfies the requirements of non-resident housing from the time of authorization to the time of occupancy

Articles 3 subparag. 9 and 47 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992); Article 4(1) of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 457 of Nov. 7, 1989)

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

Plaintiff 1 and 2 plaintiffs, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

1. 1 other than the employee housing association of the Heung Bank.

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na29292 delivered on November 13, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The record reveals that the Defendants were summoned by public notice but did not appear on the date of trial at the fact-finding court, but did not submit a reply, etc. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below judged the validity of the claims based on the plaintiffs' assertion itself without going through the fact-finding due to the constructive confession. Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the court below found the facts contrary to the facts alleged in the constructive confession.

2. Whether a person is homeless under the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992) or not shall be determined based on the owner in the public record unless it is invalid or there are other special circumstances. Thus, the title trustee in the housing does not constitute a non-household (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da49027 delivered on Jul. 27, 1993).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the homeless generation under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. The precedents regarding the theory of lawsuit are different from those of the case, and thus, it cannot

3. According to Article 3 subparag. 9 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992), Article 4(1) of the Housing Supply Rules (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 457 of Nov. 7, 1989), the court below held that as long as the plaintiffs own a house ownership in the name of a member of the association from the time when the association is authorized to establish the association, it is legitimate to order the plaintiffs from the defendant association to the defendant association in accordance with the rules of the defendant association (Article 8 of the union rules) based on the above Act and the rules (Article 8 of the union rules). The decision of the court below is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

4. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if there are circumstances asserted by the plaintiffs, since the defendant union expelleds the plaintiffs in accordance with the Housing Construction Promotion Act and the Housing Supply Regulations based on the rules on the qualifications and supply qualifications of union members, the above expulsion cannot be deemed to go against the principle of good faith. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that the above expulsion goes against the principle of good faith and the defendant union's delayed expulsion of the plaintiffs is mainly based on the concealment of the plaintiffs. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)