If only the family members of a lessee make a resident registration, there is an opposing power of the house rental right (affirmative)

As long as the family members of a lessee have completed the resident registration transfer report in the location of the building, it is reasonable to view that the lessee has completed the resident registration as a requirement for meeting opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act even if the lessee has not completed his/her resident

Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law No. 814, 1779, Oct. 26, 1987)

Kim Sejong-ro

Lee Sung-sung

Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (86 Gohap3407, 3408)

The appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, plaintiff hereinafter only) shall be revoked.

The defendant shall order the plaintiff to 15.5 square meters of the rooftop commercial building among the buildings listed in the attached list.

The total costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in total, including the principal lawsuit and counterclaim, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiff would pay the defendant KRW 6,00,000 to the defendant in return for order and redemption of KRW 15.5 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list from the defendant.

The court costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and a declaration of provisional execution

In full view of the purport of the pleading in Gap evidence No. 1, which is not disputed in the formation, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage No. 1 in the name of the non-party Hongsung Cooperative as of July 13, 1982 and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mutual savings and finance company No. 2 in the name of the non-party Hongsung Cooperative as of September 13, 1983, was made in order with the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage No. 1 in the name of the non-party Hongsung Cooperative as of Sep. 13, 1982. The fact that the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid of the building of this case on June 4, 1985 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff on July 7, 1986, and the fact that the defendant occupied No. 15.5 of the building of this case among the buildings of this case is not disputed between the parties.

As a principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the building of this case, sought an order of the above possession portion to the Defendant as the above owner of the building of this case. The Defendant entered the lease contract with the above Hongwon at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, and completed the transfer of ownership of the building of this case to the Plaintiff who succeeded to the status of the previous lessor by acquiring the ownership of the building of this case. Accordingly, the above possession portion cannot be clarified until the Plaintiff was returned to the above owner of the building of this case. The Defendant asserted that the above establishment of the right to collateral security was not carried out simultaneously with the order of the above possession portion to the Defendant of this case to the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the 5-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the 5-party 1 to whom the above right to collateral security was established.

According to the above facts, as long as the defendant's family members, who were the occupying assistant, have completed the resident registration report at the location of the building in this case from the above Hong Sungwon, the owner of the building in this case prior to the establishment of the above right to collateral security, and as long as the defendant's resident registration was not completed at the time of the establishment registration at the location of the building in this case, it is reasonable to view that the defendant completed the resident registration as a requirement to satisfy the opposing power of the Housing Lease Protection Act, even if the defendant did not complete the registration at the time of establishment registration at the location of the building in this case,

Meanwhile, in this case where the defendant sought the return of the above lease deposit as the counterclaim of this case, the above lease contract without setting the term of lease was legally terminated on August 1, 1986 from July 1, 1986 to the date when the copy of the counterclaim of this case was delivered to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to receive 6,000,000 won from the plaintiff and at the same time to order the plaintiff to indicate the above possession portion. The plaintiff is obligated to pay 6,00,000 won from the defendant to the defendant in return for the above possession portion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim of this case and the defendant's counterclaim of this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining main claim and counterclaim are dismissed, without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Senior High-Tech (Presiding Judge)