[2] The case holding that it cannot be viewed as valid as a method of public announcement of the lease of a resident registration which is inconsistent with the "No. 103 Dong-dong, 103", which is an indication of Dong-dong and Dong-dong on the registry

[2] The case holding that the resident registration cannot be deemed valid as a method of publicly announcing the above lease on the ground that the resident registration which is inconsistent with the 103-dong 103-dong 'didong 103', which is an indication of Dong/Dong 103, was not found to be able to recognize that the tenant was registered as a person who has an address or residence in the pertinent lease building

1. The judgment of the court below

The court below rejected the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1', non-party 3', non-party 1', non-party 4', non-party 1', non-party 7', non-party 1', non-party 1', non-party 1', non-party 4', non-party 1', non-party 1', non-party 4', non-party 6', non-party 1', non-party 1', non-party 3', non-party 4', non-party 1', non-party 1', non-party 1', non-party 4', non-party 1', non-party 1', non-party 2', non-party 1', non-party 1', non-party 3', non-party 1', non-party 4', non-party 6', non-party 1'

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides for the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a house, and the method of public announcement that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a lease for the safety of transaction. Whether the validity of public announcement of a lease is determined depending on whether the resident registration can be recognized as the person who has an address or residence in the relevant lease building under the general social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da47828, Jan. 23, 1998; 97Da29530, Nov. 14, 1997; 97Da1024, Jul. 11, 1997).

Examining relevant evidence in comparison with records, the fact-finding conducted by the court below is justified. However, even if all of the circumstances recognized by the court below are considered, each resident registration of the defendants, which is inconsistent with Dradong 103, which is an indication of the same and several units on the registry of the house of this case, cannot be recognized as being registered on the lease building of this case as an address or a person having a residence. Thus, each of the above resident registration numbers cannot be deemed valid as a method of public announcement of each lease of the defendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da43577, Jan. 24, 1997; 95Da5474, Apr. 12, 1996; 95Da1777, Aug. 11, 1995).

Therefore, from the contrary perspective, the judgment of the court below which held that each of the above resident registrations of the defendants is valid as a method of publicly announcing the lease is an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the resident registration as a requisite for setting up against the Housing Lease Protection Act. Therefore, there is a reason for the plaintiff

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)