In cases where a foreigner or a foreign nationality Korean has filed a foreigner registration, a report on the change of his/her place of residence, a report on the change of his/her place of residence, or a report on the change of his/her place of residence in accordance with the former Immigration Control Act or the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans, whether Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act recognizes the same legal effect as that of the resident registration prescribed as the requirements for acquiring the opposing power of the Housing Lease Protection Act (affirmative), and in cases where

Articles 2(2) and 6(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 3(1) and (2), and 3-6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act; Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act; Articles 31(1), 32 subparag. 4, 36(1), and 88-2(2) of the former Immigration Control Act (Amended by Act No. 10282, May 14, 2010); Articles 2 and 10 of the former Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (Amended by Act No. 12593, May 20, 2014); Articles 6(1)3, and 29(2) of the Resident Registration Act

Supreme Court Decision 95Da35616 Decided February 27, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1094) Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218030, 218047 Decided October 13, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1658)

Plaintiff (English name omitted)

Defendant (Person of Parental Authority) (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Ho-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2029624 decided November 20, 2015

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to a foreigner or a foreign nationality Korean under 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”), the legal effect of the foreigner registration or the change of the place of stay, or the report on the domestic domicile or the moving of his/her residence is recognized as having the same effect as that of the resident registration, which is stipulated as the requirement for acquiring the opposing power of the housing lease under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. This cannot be viewed otherwise because the foreigner registration or the domestic domicile report, etc. is weak compared to the resident registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218030, 218047, Oct. 13, 2016).

Meanwhile, in a case where a lessee of a house has opposing power against a third party and the transferee succeeds to the status of the lessor, the obligation to return the lease deposit also is transferred in combination with the ownership of the real estate. Thus, the transferor’s status as a lessor or the obligation to return the deposit becomes extinct (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da35616, Feb. 27, 1996, etc.).

2. A. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

1) On March 6, 2009, the Plaintiff, a Korean national of U.S. nationality, concluded a lease agreement with Nonparty 3 (the mother of Nonparty 2) on the instant apartment owned by Nonparty 2, setting the lease term from March 23, 2009 to March 22, 201, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 600 million, and around that time, occupied the instant apartment upon delivery to Nonparty 3 while paying the lease deposit. On March 10, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the instant apartment as the domestic residence.

2) On December 2, 2010, the day after Non-party 2 died on October 11, 2009, the Plaintiff extended the lease period to the end of April 27, 2013, and decided to increase the lease deposit to KRW 700 million (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant lease contract”), and paid KRW 100 million increased to Non-party 3 around that time.

3) On April 10, 2013, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 4 was completed on the ground of “sale on March 7, 2013,” and the Plaintiff expressed his intention not to renew the instant lease agreement to the Defendant and Nonparty 4 one month prior to the expiration of the instant lease agreement.

B. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, a foreign nationality Korean, acquired the opposing power of the housing lease by acquiring the apartment of this case by acquiring it and reporting it to the domestic residence, and thereafter, Nonparty 4 succeeded to the status of the lessor by acquiring the ownership of the apartment of this case, thereby extinguishing the Defendant’s status as the lessor or the obligation to return the deposit money.

3. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff, a foreign nationality Korean, failed to obtain the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the domestic domicile report made by a foreign nationality Korean under the Overseas Koreans Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal

4. Therefore, 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 on the bench.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)