1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. The Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Open-dong District ○○○dong △△-dong Maol (hereinafter “instant residence”) consists of three rooms, two bathing rooms, kitchen rooms, kitchen rooms, living rooms, and entrance doors, and Nonparty 1, who is the Plaintiff’s words, has resided in the said address.

B. On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with her husband Nonparty 2 and her husband Nonparty 3 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) to include them into Nonparty 1’s household member in the instant residence.

C. However, “Yeong-dong, △△-dong” refers to an unauthorized building management number that the Defendant voluntarily divided into Dong and Dong waters for the purpose of self-administrative convenience, such as convenience of residents, management of unauthorized buildings, identification of the status of residents, etc., without any specific legal basis, and entered on the YY-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. On the other hand, the certified copy of the resident registration card of the Plaintiff et al. included only the lot number as the “Seong-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Seoul”. Since the implementation of the Road Name Address Act, the above address was changed to the “Seong-dong, Seoul.”

D. After that, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the Defendant, wherein the Plaintiff et al.’s householder was transferred to Nonparty 2, and the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the Defendant, stating the place of transfer as “Seongpo-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City ○○ Village District △△-dong Residence (hereinafter “the applicant’s place of residence”).

E. On May 7, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that rejected the instant report on the ground that the place of residence applied for was not registered in the former Yaeng Village Management Register.

2. Based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that the instant disposition rejecting the instant report was unlawful on the grounds that: (a) the applicant’s residence refers to the part consisting of two partitions and one bath room used by the Plaintiff, etc. among the instant residence; (b) the applicant’s residence is separate from the room and bath room used by Nonparty 1; and (c) the reporter’s intent to have different interests other than the purpose of residence is not subject to consideration at the stage of examining whether to accept the move-in report.

3. However, according to the above facts, prior to filing the instant report, the Plaintiff et al. had already registered as a resident in the instant residence, and the applicant’s residence stated in the instant report was merely an additional entry of “resident name” in the instant residence. Therefore, apart from whether the Defendant should enter the Plaintiff’s “resident name” in the resident registration card as it is, at least, the instant report may be interpreted that the Plaintiff et al. constitutes an independent household separate from Nonparty 1, without actually transferring the Plaintiff’s domicile or residence, and at least, the Plaintiff et al.’s domicile was changed by indicating “the Plaintiff et al.’s separate household name” in the instant domicile. Accordingly, although the instant report takes the form of the move-in report, it constitutes a report on the correction of resident registration (Article 13 of the Resident Registration Act) with the content of the division of households.

However, with the above circumstances cited by the court below, considering the following circumstances, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 are simplified, but they are two majority majority majority, and in particular, the plaintiff et al. married with the non-party 2 and constitutes a separate family member, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff et al. has been living independently from the non-party 1. Therefore, if the plaintiff et al. wishes, the plaintiff et al. can establish a separate household with the non-party 1 and make a resident registration in the instant residential area. Furthermore, the defendant cannot refuse to accept the report of this case applying for separation of households on the ground that the non-party 1 did not have an independent family member in the place where the plaintiff et al. reside. Furthermore, even if the defendant accept the report of this case, it is possible to prepare the resident registration card without stating the "resident registration card" that has no legal basis in the address in preparing the resident registration card of the plaintiff et al.

Therefore, although the court below erred in determining the instant report as a move-in report, which is not a corrective report, it is just in its conclusion that the instant disposition is unlawful, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the filing of a corrective report and resident registration under the Resident Registration Act,

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)