In writing only: email and e-filing

KSTGeneral information, not legal advice

Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies

When a vacated-unit tenant must hold no other house

Supreme Court, Apr. 30, 2026, 2025Da220178 (judgment)

Case name: 부당이득금반환

Official text on the National Law Information Center

  1. Question

    Where a tenant concluded a lease by individual contract for a rental house vacated by the previous occupant and returned to the developer, having owned another house when the lease was signed, does that tenant fall within the priority sale-conversion targets under Article 21(1)(i) of the former Rental Housing Act, and is the qualification restored if the tenant later loses the other house through an agreed rescission?

  2. Holding

    Not in principle, and the qualification is not restored. Because the developer must check in advance whether the prospective entrant is houseless before signing an individual lease for a vacated unit, the no-house condition under Article 21(1)(i) of the former Rental Housing Act must be held from the date the lease was signed. A tenant who owned another house on that date therefore lacks the qualification unless there are special circumstances such as an exceptional case permitted under Article 21(1)(ii) or the other provisions of the former Rental Housing Act, and losing the other house later through an agreed rescission does not bring it back.

    Summary of the holding, verbatim

    명도세대 임차인에 대한 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호의 무주택 요건은 명도세대 임차인이 임대차계약을 체결한 날부터 갖추고 있어야 한다.

    Unofficial English translation

    The no-homeownership requirement under Article 21 (1) 1 of the former Rental Housing Act for a tenant of a delivered household must be satisfied from the date on which the tenant of the delivered household concluded the lease agreement.
  3. Disposition

    Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

    원심판결 중 피고의 원고 678에 대한 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 나머지 상고를 모두 기각한다.

    Unofficial English translation

    The part of the judgment of the court below that was against the defendant with respect to Plaintiff 678 is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court. All remaining final appeals of the defendant are dismissed.
  4. Form of the test

    Elements stated Stated in the decision

    명도세대 임차인에 대한 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호의 무주택 요건은 명도세대 임차인이 임대차계약을 체결한 날부터 갖추고 있어야 한다.

    Unofficial English translation

    The no-homeownership requirement under Article 21 (1) 1 of the former Rental Housing Act for a tenant of a delivered household must be satisfied from the date on which the tenant of the delivered household concluded the lease agreement.
  5. Factors

    • 사업주체는 종전 입주자가 퇴거함으로써 사업주체에게 명도된 임대주택(이하 ‘명도세대’라고 한다)에 관하여 입주자모집공고나 선착순의 방법이 아닌 개별적 계약 방식으로 임대차계약을 체결하는 경우
    • 미리 입주 대상자의 무주택 여부를 확인한 후 임대차계약을 체결하여야 하므로
    • 명도세대 임차인에 대한 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호의 무주택 요건은 명도세대 임차인이 임대차계약을 체결한 날부터 갖추고 있어야 한다.
    • 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제2호 등 구 임대주택법령에서 허용하는 예외적인 경우에 해당하는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한
    • 합의해제를 원인으로 다른 주택의 소유권을 상실하게 되었더라도 우선 분양전환 대상자의 자격 요건이 회복된다고 할 수 없다.

    Unofficial English translation

    • Where the project operator concludes a lease agreement, by means of an individual contract rather than through a public invitation for occupants or a first-come, first-served method, with respect to rental housing delivered to the project operator because the previous occupant vacated it (hereinafter, 'delivered household')

    • since the project operator must verify in advance whether the prospective occupant owns no housing unit before concluding the lease agreement, and therefore

    • the no-homeownership requirement under Article 21 (1) 1 of the former Rental Housing Act for a tenant of a delivered household must be satisfied from the date on which the tenant of the delivered household concluded the lease agreement.

    • Unless there exist special circumstances such as falling under an exceptional case permitted by Article 21 (1) 2 of the former Rental Housing Act or other provisions of the former Rental Housing Act and subordinate statutes,

    • even if the ownership of another housing unit is lost by reason of termination by mutual agreement, it cannot be regarded that the qualification requirements for a person eligible for priority conversion into ownership housing are restored.

  6. Relation to precedent

    States a new standard Read from the decision

    명도세대 임차인에 대한 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호의 무주택 요건은 명도세대 임차인이 임대차계약을 체결한 날부터 갖추고 있어야 한다.

    Unofficial English translation

    The no-homeownership requirement under Article 21 (1) 1 of the former Rental Housing Act for a tenant of a delivered household must be satisfied from the date on which the tenant of the delivered household concluded the lease agreement.

    Decisions referred to

    해당 본문 참조

  7. Burden of proof

    Not addressed Not in the decision

  8. Open question and revisit condition

    Does the same timing rule govern the no-house condition of a tenant selected by public recruitment announcement or on a first-come basis, where the Court stated its rule only for leases concluded individually for a vacated unit?

    The Seoul High Court's remand judgment on Plaintiff 678, once delivered, will show how the timing rule is applied to these facts. Any amendment to Article 50-3(1)(i) of the Public Housing Special Act that alters the no-house requirement, or a later decision setting the date for that requirement in cases of public recruitment or first-come selection, would require this entry to be read again.

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24

A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).

Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”

The primary reading may treat the express contract-date rule as a new standard, while the independent reading may find the precedent relationship unidentifiable because the supplied text does not explain its relationship to earlier decisions.

명도세대 임차인에 대한 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호의 무주택 요건은 명도세대 임차인이 임대차계약을 체결한 날부터 갖추고 있어야 한다.

Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does the same timing rule govern the no-house condition of a tenant selected by public recruitment announcement or on a first-come basis, where the Court stated its rule only for leases concluded individually for a vacated unit?” vs Independent “What special circumstances, beyond the identified statutory exceptions, could preserve preferential purchase eligibility despite ownership of another home when the lease was concluded?”

The primary reading asks whether the timing rule extends to other tenant selection methods, whereas the independent reading asks which additional special circumstances preserve eligibility.

명도세대 임차인에 대한 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호의 무주택 요건은 명도세대 임차인이 임대차계약을 체결한 날부터 갖추고 있어야 한다.

Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)

Lower-court contrast & scope of application

Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding

Lower-court context: The appellate court held that Plaintiff 678 met the requirements under Article 21(1)(i) of the former Rental Housing Act. Plaintiff 678 had registered ownership transfer over the other house on 26 December 2005, before signing the lease on 22 February 2007, but that registration was cancelled on 27 June 2013 on the basis of an agreement rescinded on 25 June 2013, so the plaintiff was houseless without interruption from the date the lease was signed to the date the sale conversion contract was signed on 15 January 2024. On the other points it held that the actual construction cost is the real cost incurred within the range of the standard cost, that the costs the defendant claimed were not excluded from or omitted in the acquisition tax base it reported, that a tenant selected on a first-come basis under Article 21(1)(iv) becomes a priority target by disposing of the owned house before sale conversion, and that the remaining plaintiffs met the continuing residence requirement.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found that reading contrary to law. Once Plaintiff 678 failed to hold no other house when the lease was signed, and no exceptional case or other special circumstance applied, the qualification could not be revived by the later loss of the other house through an agreed rescission; the appellate court had misread the law on the qualification for priority sale conversion in a way that affected the result. It reversed the portion of the judgment adverse to the defendant as to Plaintiff 678 and remanded that part to the Seoul High Court, dismissed the rest of the defendant's appeal, left the appellate findings on the construction cost basis and the remaining plaintiffs undisturbed, and ruled on the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.

Distinguishing conditions

  • A tenant of a vacated unit selected by public recruitment announcement or on a first-come basis rather than by an individual contract, since the Court stated the rule for leases concluded individually.
  • A tenant who falls within an exceptional case permitted under Article 21(1)(ii) of the former Rental Housing Act or its other provisions, since the Court qualified its rule by the absence of such special circumstances.
  • A first-come tenant who disposes of an owned house and becomes houseless before the sale conversion, whose qualification the appellate court upheld and the Supreme Court left standing.

Record verification notes

Fix first which version of the Rental Housing Act governs, since the Court applied the former Act as amended before 28 May 2014 and the former Enforcement Decree, Enforcement Rule and Rules on Housing Supply in their earlier forms, with the corresponding current provisions of the Public Housing Special Act noted. Then ask on what date the lease was signed and whether the tenant then owned another house, and look for any exceptional case the former Act allows. Keep the grounds of the other plaintiffs and the calculation of the actual construction cost separate, since the Court dismissed the appeal on those points.

From the official text

Points at issue

종전 입주자가 퇴거함으로써 사업주체에게 명도된 임대주택에 관하여 개별적 계약 방식으로 임대차계약을 체결한 임차인이 임대차계약 체결 당시 다른 주택을 소유하고 있었던 경우, 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 우선 분양전환 대상자에 해당하는지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 이후 임차인이 합의해제를 원인으로 다른 주택의 소유권을 상실하면 우선 분양전환 대상자의 자격 요건이 회복되는지 여부(소극)

Unofficial English translation

Whether a tenant who concluded a lease agreement by means of an individual contract with respect to rental housing delivered to the project operator because the previous occupant vacated it, and who owned another housing unit at the time the lease agreement was concluded, falls under a person eligible for priority conversion into ownership housing as provided in Article 21 (1) 1 of the former Rental Housing Act (in principle, negative), and whether, if the tenant subsequently loses ownership of another housing unit by reason of termination by mutual agreement, the qualification requirements for a person eligible for priority conversion into ownership housing are restored (negative)

Summary of the holding

구 임대주택법(2014. 5. 28. 법률 제12704호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제21조 제1항 제1호는 입주일 이후부터 분양전환 당시까지 해당 임대주택에 거주한 무주택자인 임차인을 우선 분양전환 대상자로 규정하고 있다. 구 임대주택법 시행령(2008. 2. 29. 대통령령 제20722호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조 및 구 임대주택법 시행규칙(2007. 3. 27. 건설교통부령 제553호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제2조의4 제1항에 의하여 공공건설임대주택의 임차인의 자격 및 선정방법에 관하여는 구 주택공급에 관한 규칙(2007. 8. 24. 건설교통부령 제577호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다)이 정하는 바에 의하는데, 구 주택공급에 관한 규칙은 제4조 제1항과 제2항에서 국민주택 등의 공급대상을 입주자모집공고일 현재 당해 주택건설지역에 거주하는 세대주로서 입주자모집공고일부터 입주 시까지 무주택세대주로 한정하고, 나아가 제21조의2 제1항과 제3항에서 사업주체에게 국민주택 등의 입주자를 선정하는 경우 주택전산망에 의하여 입주 대상자로 선정된 자의 무주택기간 및 주택소유 여부 등을 전산검색할 것과 함께 이러한 전산검색 결과 부적격자로 판정된 자에 대하여는 주택 소유 여부를 증명할 수 있는 서류 등을 제출하도록 하여 공급자격의 정당 여부를 확인한 후 입주자를 확정할 것을 의무사항으로 부과하고 있다. 구 임대주택법 시행규칙 제2조의4 제2항과 제4항은 임대사업자에게 공공건설임대주택에 대하여 임대차계약의 체결 시 미리 구 주택공급에 관한 규칙 제21조의2 규정에 의한 전산검색을 하도록 하고, 전산검색 결과 공공건설임대주택을 임대받을 자격이 없는 경우에는 공공건설임대주택을 임대하여서는 아니 된다고 정하고 있다. 이러한 임대주택 입주자의 선정 요건 및 임대주택 분양전환 대상자의 자격 요건, 입주자 선정 시 사업주체에게 부여된 확인의무 등에 관한 규정 내용과 구 임대주택법의 입법 취지 등을 종합하면, 사업주체는 종전 입주자가 퇴거함으로써 사업주체에게 명도된 임대주택(이하 ‘명도세대’라고 한다)에 관하여 입주자모집공고나 선착순의 방법이 아닌 개별적 계약 방식으로 임대차계약을 체결하는 경우 미리 입주 대상자의 무주택 여부를 확인한 후 임대차계약을 체결하여야 하므로, 명도세대 임차인에 대한 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호의 무주택 요건은 명도세대 임차인이 임대차계약을 체결한 날부터 갖추고 있어야 한다. 따라서 임대차계약 체결 당시 명도세대 임차인이 다른 주택을 소유하고 있었다면 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제2호 등 구 임대주택법령에서 허용하는 예외적인 경우에 해당하는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 무주택 요건을 갖추지 못한 것이 되고, 이로써 구 임대주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호가 정하는 우선 분양전환 대상자의 자격 요건을 갖추지 못한 것이 된다. 이와 같이 명도세대 임차인이 임대차계약 체결 당시 다른 주택의 소유로 무주택 요건을 갖추지 못하여 우선 분양전환 대상자에 해당하지 않게 된 이상 그 이후 임차인이 합의해제를 원인으로 다른 주택의 소유권을 상실하게 되었더라도 우선 분양전환 대상자의 자격 요건이 회복된다고 할 수 없다.

Order

원심판결 중 피고의 원고 678에 대한 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 나머지 상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 피고의 원고 678을 제외한 나머지 원고들에 대한 상고로 생긴 부분은 피고가 부담한다.

Unofficial English translation

The part of the judgment of the court below that was against the defendant with respect to Plaintiff 678 is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court. All remaining final appeals of the defendant are dismissed. Of the appeal costs, the portion arising from the appeals against the plaintiffs other than Plaintiff 678 shall be borne by the defendant.

Provisions referred to

구 임대주택법(2014. 5. 28. 법률 제12704호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제21조 제1항 제1호[현행 공공주택 특별법 제50조의3 제1항 제1호 (가)목 참조], 제2호[현행 공공주택 특별법 제50조의3 제1항 제1호 (나)목 참조], 구 임대주택법 시행령(2008. 2. 29. 대통령령 제20722호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조(현행 공공주택 특별법 제48조 참조), 구 임대주택법 시행규칙(2007. 3. 27. 건설교통부령 제553호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조의4 제1항(현행 공공주택 특별법 시행규칙 제13조 제1항 참조), 제2항(현행 공공주택 특별법 시행규칙 제25조 제3항 참조), 제4항(현행 공공주택 특별법 시행규칙 제25조 제8항 참조), 구 주택공급에 관한 규칙(2007. 8. 24. 건설교통부령 제577호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제1항(현행 제4조 제1항 참조), 제2항(현행 제4조 제2항 참조), 제21조의2 제1항(현행 제52조 제1항 참조), 제3항(현행 제52조 제3항 참조)

Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.

Back to the ledger
You are reading PRO SE
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com