[배당이의][공2001.6.15.(132),1201]
[1] Criteria for determining the validity of resident registration, which is a requisite for setting up a lease under the Housing Lease Protection Act
[2] The case holding that even if the land on three lots, including the site for the leased house, is located in the same fence and the building is not constructed on the ground other than the leased house, if the lessee completed resident registration with the lot number of the adjacent land, other than the leased house site, it cannot be deemed a valid publication method
[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which provides the requirements for opposing power of the lease along with the delivery of a house, shall be deemed to have been established by a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of the lease for the safety of transaction. Thus, whether the validity of a public announcement of a lease is determined depending on whether a lessee can be recognized as a person who has an address or residence in the relevant lease building due to his resident registration under the common sense of the general society.
[2] The case holding that even if the land on three lots, including the site for the leased house, is located in the same fence and the building is not constructed on the ground other than the leased house, if the lessee completed resident registration with the lot number of the adjacent land other than the leased house site, it shall not be deemed a valid publication method
[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da10024 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2489), Supreme Court Decision 97Da29530 delivered on November 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3820), Supreme Court Decision 97Da47828 delivered on January 23, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 614)
Dong Bank Mutual Savings and Finance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Yang & Yang, Attorneys Cho Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for defendant
Defendant (Attorney Hwang Jin-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 99Na50714 delivered on July 12, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides the requirements for the opposing power of the lease along with the delivery of a house, and the delivery of a house is established as a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of the lease for the safety of transaction. Thus, whether the public announcement of the resident registration has the effect of disclosing the lease is determined depending on whether the resident registration can be recognized as being registered as a person who has an address or a residence in the relevant lease building with the resident registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da29530, Nov. 14, 1997; 97Da47828, Jan. 23, 1998).
The court below found that the defendant's site for the house leased by the defendant is 168.6 square meters Seoul Jongno-gu ( Address 1 omitted), the above land is adjacent to the Seoul Jongno-gu ( Address 2 omitted) and 558 square meters and the above three lots of land is located within the same fence and there is no building other than the above building on the ground that the above three lots of land is located within the same fence, and the defendant's ( Address 2 omitted) completed the resident registration as "( Address 2 omitted)". Since the above lot number is not adjacent to the above ( Address 1 omitted) or is clearly distinguishable from the above, it cannot be viewed that the third party in light of the general society's common sense is not misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the right of lease and the right of lease and the right of lease cannot be viewed as being registered in the Housing Lease Protection Act.
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, which purport to criticize the contents of the additional and family judgment of the court below, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party.
Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)