In cases where a registered business operator under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act is a housing association and a joint project operator constructs multi-family housing with approval for a project plan, whether the portion equivalent to the share shall be supplied in accordance with the Rules on Housing Supply regardless of the number of households;

In full view of the purport of the provisions of Articles 32, 33(1) and 44(3) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4675 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 32(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Rules on Housing Supply, when a housing construction business operator registered pursuant to Article 6 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act supplies (sale or lease) 17 households of apartment units, which are the portion of apartment units among apartment units constructed with approval of a housing construction project plan for 156 households, with a housing association and a joint business proprietor registered pursuant to Article 6 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, the housing construction business operator shall supply (sale or lease) by means of open recruitment with prior approval of occupants from

Articles 32, 33(1) and 44(3) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4675 of Dec. 31, 1993); Articles 32(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14063 of Dec. 31, 1993); Articles 3 and 8 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance No. 561 of Aug. 16, 1994)

Attorney Lee Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of the Gu of Daegu Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu1792 delivered on April 7, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

In full view of the purport of each provision of Articles 32, 33(1) and 44(3) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4675 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), Article 32(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Rules on Housing Supply (hereinafter referred to as the “Supply Rules”), when a housing construction business operator registered pursuant to Article 6 of the Act supplies (sale or lease) part of the apartment houses with a housing association and constructed by a joint project proprietor who became a joint project proprietor with the housing association, the portion equivalent to the share of the apartment houses shall be supplied by means of open recruitment with prior approval from the competent administrative agency regardless of the number of households. The contents of questioning 01254-21796 of Sep. 19, 1989, as pointed out in the Grounds for Appeal, do not interfere with the above interpretation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 16, 191, the plaintiff, the housing construction business entity, and the non-party 2 housing association (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 2 association") were joint business entities, and the non-party 2-dong 305-2 and 7,857-18 square meters of apartment land 156 households (13.505 square meters of the plaintiff's share and 17 households of the non-party 84.925 square meters of the plaintiff's share, hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff's share") were constructed the above apartment building with the approval of the housing construction project plan for the non-party 17 households under the Act, and completed a completion inspection on May 16, 193. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the supply of the apartment house from August 16 to April 1994 of the same year, and did not err in the misapprehension of the general rules of supply of it to the non-party 17.14.

As to the second and third points

The argument in the grounds of appeal in this part is not a legitimate ground of appeal, because it is a new fact that has not been raised in the court below's decision.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)