2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The registration of the establishment of a neighboring agricultural cooperative in the name of Suwon District Court was completed on September 27, 2002 with respect to the buildings listed in the [Attachment] owned by Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the multi-household housing of this case”). The Plaintiff acquired ownership by winning a successful bid for the multi-household housing of this case on May 16, 2005 at the voluntary auction procedure, 2003tasan-29930, which was conducted upon the application of the non-party 1, the mortgagee-mortgage-backed agricultural cooperative.

B. On December 20, 1994, the Defendant leased and received the portion corresponding to the instant multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant multi-household housing”) among the three-households on the ground of the 1st underground floor (story and the 1st floor, the 2nd floor, and the 3rd floor are structurally divided into two households) on the ground of the 1st underground floor in Ansan-si, Busan-si, where the registration of ownership preservation has been made after being constructed as a multi-household housing and the registration of ownership preservation has been made. On the same day, the Defendant was living in the instant multi-household housing on the same day after completing the move-in report.

C. At the time of April 13, 2001, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty 2, who is the owner of the instant multi-household housing, to lease the instant multi-household housing from April 13, 200 to April 12, 2002, and continued to reside in the instant multi-household housing with a fixed date on the same lease agreement.

D. After that, Nonparty 1, who acquired the ownership of the entire building, including the instant multi-household housing, filed an application with the competent administrative agency for changing the above building, which is a multi-household housing, into a multi-household housing. Accordingly, on September 13, 2002, it was divided into each floor and unit, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name. Accordingly, the instant multi-household housing leased by the Defendant was changed into a multi-household housing, and the competent administrative agency prepared a multi-household building register on the instant multi-household housing, and the previous multi-household housing register was closed, and the new register was changed into a multi-household housing on September 24, 202.

E. As the Defendant changed the instant multi-household housing into a multi-household on January 9, 2003, the Defendant changed the special address to the “Yansan-si, the members (detailed lot number omitted) No. 101” under Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The time when the defendant, a lessee of the instant multi-household housing, prior to the change of the instant multi-household housing into the multi-household housing, acquired the opposing power stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be January 9, 2003 when he reported the change of his special address due to the change of the multi-household housing. However, since the right to collateral security has been established on September 27, 2002, the above multi-household housing as the above right to collateral security cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid in the progress auction procedure for the multi-household housing as the above right to collateral security. Thus, the defendant asserts that he has the obligation to explain the instant multi-household housing to the plaintiff.

The defendant, prior to the change of the multi-household of this case into the multi-household of this case, leased the multi-household of this case and received it, and then acquired the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act around December 20, 1994, which completed the resident registration, and thereby, may oppose the plaintiff who acquired the ownership in the voluntary auction procedure for the multi-household of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

B. Determination

(1) In the first time, the issue of whether the lease is effective in relation to a third party who acquired a right to collateral security and has an interest in the register after being divided into a multi-household's resident registration of a lessee who completed a resident registration by leasing a part of a building for which a registration of ownership preservation has been made as a multi-household house, shall be determined on the basis of whether the lessee can be recognized as a person having an address or a domicile in the relevant house as a resident registration under ordinary social norms. In ordinary cases, the third party who seeks to have an interest in the register can grasp the matters concerning the indication of the relevant house and the right to the relevant house through the register. Thus, in the first time, if a registration of ownership preservation has been made as a multi-household house but later changed into a multi-household house, the third party who intends to have an interest in the relevant house on the register can verify the fact that the multi-household house was

Therefore, a lessee who first rents a part of a building for which a registration of ownership preservation has been made as a multi-household house shall legally acquire the opposing power prescribed in the Housing Lease Protection Act if he/she receives it and accurately enters the lot number of the leased building and makes a move-in report, and later, the lessee shall not lose the opposing power that he/she has already acquired on the premise that he/she is a multi-household house solely because the multi-household house has been changed into a multi-household house (other than this, it is very unreasonable for the lessee to lose the opposing power that he/she has already acquired on the premise that he/she is a multi-household house due to a sudden circumstance of the

(2) As acknowledged earlier, as to the instant case, the Defendant leased and delivered the instant multi-household housing on December 20, 1994. On the same day, the Plaintiff, who was awarded a bid for the instant multi-household housing in a voluntary auction procedure conducted by another agricultural cooperative, a mortgagee, who had an interest in registration based on the premise that the Defendant is a multi-household housing, cannot file a claim against the Defendant for the name of the multi-household housing in this case, since the Plaintiff, who was awarded a bid for the instant multi-household housing in a voluntary auction procedure conducted by another agricultural cooperative, a mortgagee, who had an interest in registration based on the premise that the Defendant is a multi-household housing, can not claim against the Defendant for the name of the multi-household housing in this case by December 21, 1994, which is the next day. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Shin Sung-sung