1. A foreigner or a foreign nationality Korean shall have the same legal effect as that of a resident registration, a report on the change of his/her place of stay, or a report on the change of his/her domestic domicile or residence, which was made in accordance with the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 10282, May 14, 2010) or the former Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (amended by Act No. 12593, May 20, 2014; hereinafter “Overseas Koreans Act”).

This cannot be viewed as different because the public disclosure function is weak compared to the resident registration or domestic residence report, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218030, 218047 Decided October 13, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218030, 218047). Meanwhile, in cases where a lessee of a leased house transfers the ownership of the leased house to a lessor and succeeds to the status of the lessor, the obligation to return the lease deposit is also transferred in combination with the ownership of the real estate, and the transferor’

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da35616 delivered on February 27, 1996, etc.). 2. A.

The judgment below

According to the reasons, the following facts are revealed.

1) On March 6, 2009, the Plaintiff, a Korean national of the U.S. nationality Korean, entered into a lease agreement with F (E’s mother) on the instant apartment owned by E, setting the lease term of KRW 600 million from March 23, 2009 to March 22, 201, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 600 million. Around that time, the Plaintiff occupied the instant apartment upon delivery while paying the above lease deposit to F, and reported the instant apartment to his domestic residence on March 10, 2009. (2) The Plaintiff extended the lease term between F and the Defendant, the sole property heir of E, who was the Plaintiff’s property heir, on October 11, 2009, and extended the lease term to April 27, 2013.