Whether the tenant's address and the tenant's unanimous opinion can be deemed to have completed the resident registration transfer report under the Housing Lease Protection Act, if the lot number of the building, which is the object of lease, is the tenant's address.

The reason is that the resident registration address of a lessee who has been transferred to king and the number of the building, which is the object of lease newly constructed thereafter, coincide with that of the lessee, shall not be deemed to have completed the resident registration transfer report as prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Maximum beneficiary;

Defendant

Gwangju District Court (84Gahap11)

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall sap 126 reinforced concrete structure 126-3, 1003, 126-126-3, sapap 54 square meters in total 54 square meters in total, 54 square meters in total, 54 square meters in total, 54 square meters in total, and 54 square meters in total, 3rd floor.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

According to Gap evidence No. 5, without dispute over the establishment, the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim a transfer of ownership was made under the name of the plaintiff on October 12, 1982 with respect to the part of the building in the order of the non-party's original ownership (hereinafter the building in this case), and the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim a transfer of ownership was made under the name of the plaintiff on August 9, 1982, the principal registration of the right to claim a transfer of ownership was made under the name of the plaintiff on October 8, 1982 with the receipt of the same registry office on August 9, 1983 and the registration of the transfer of ownership was made under the name of the plaintiff on October 8, 1982. The fact that the defendant currently occupies or uses the building in this case is not a dispute between the parties, and unless the defendant proves that the defendant has the right to possess or use the building in this case, the defendant is also obligated to order the plaintiff to be presumed a legitimate owner of the building

The defendant's assertion that the above building was 10,00,00 won, and the lease period of 10,000 won was 30,000,000,000 won and 19,000,000,000 won and 20,000 won were 1,000,000,000 won and 10,000,000,000 won were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

Therefore, in this case where there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has the right to possess and use the building of this case, the plaintiff's request for the surrender of this case, which is sought on the ground that he is the owner of the building of this case, must be accepted. Accordingly, since the judgment of the court of first instance different conclusions are unfair, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party in both the first and second trials, and the judgment is delivered as per Disposition by applying Article 199 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 6 (1) of the Special Act

Judges' interference with deliberation (Presiding Judge) Kim Sang-chul and Lee Jae-chul