[1] Criteria for determining the validity of resident registration, which is a requisite for setting up a lease under the Housing Lease Protection Act

[2] Whether there exists opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act in a case where the number of units and units of a collective housing is not stated in the resident registration before the new establishment of Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides for the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a house. Since the resident registration, which is defined as the requirements for opposing power, has been prepared by a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of the right of lease for the safety of transaction, the issue of whether the resident registration has the effect of public announcement of a lease should be determined based on whether the relevant lease building can be recognized as being registered as its domicile or residence as

[2] The provision of Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act is merely a provision that has been established in order to grasp the residential relationship of residents and clarify the movement of the population on a regular basis by preventing the false entry of the resident registration, and to achieve the purpose of the Resident Registration Act enacted for the proper and simplified handling of administrative affairs. It is not a method to enter the number of Dong and Dong in the resident registration before the establishment of the provision, or a method to enter it. The purpose of legislation of the Housing Lease Protection Act that requires the resident registration as one of the requirements for establishing a right to lease is different from the purpose of legislation of the Resident Registration Act because it is different from the purpose of legislation of the Resident Registration Act, so it is not necessary to separately determine whether the above Enforcement Decree has the opposing power of resident registration after the enactment

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Da3370 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1161), Supreme Court Decision 94Da13176 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 64), Supreme Court Decision 94Da27427 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1963) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da48421 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1064)

Book Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Ansan-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na8357 delivered on September 6, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides for opposing power along with the delivery of a house. Since a resident registration is deemed to have been made by a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a right of lease for the safety of transaction, the validity of a public announcement of the resident registration shall be determined based on whether a lessee can be recognized as a person who has an address or residence in the relevant lease building as a resident registration under ordinary social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Da3370, Jun. 27, 1989; 94Da13176, Nov. 22, 1994; 94Da27427, Apr. 28, 1995).

According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, when the defendant moving-in report is made on the lease of 301 among the 15 households of multi-household houses on the 4th floor above the ground surface of Seongdong-gu in Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted), the defendant made a moving-in report by entering the resident registration address into the above 3th floor and only one of the above 3th floor lot numbers of multi-household houses in Seongdong-gu in Seoul ( Address 2 omitted). Thus, the above resident registration cannot be recognized as a third party registered as a person with the 301 address of the above multi-household house registered as a lessee under the general social norms, and the above resident registration cannot be deemed as valid as a method of notifying the above lease.

The issue is that since Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act, which provides that "in the case of multi-family housing, the name of multi-family housing based on the building management ledger and the number of units shall be stated next to the lot number," was newly established only by the Presidential Decree No. 14299 on June 30, 194, which provides that the above provision shall be effective as a method of public notification as to the resident registration that entered only the lot number without the number of units or units shall be recognized. However, the provision of Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act is merely a principle for the purpose of achieving the purpose of the Resident Registration Act, which was enacted to grasp the residential relationship of residents and clarify the movement of the full-time population in order to manage the administrative affairs in a proper and simplified manner, and it is not a method to enter the number of units or units in the resident registration before the above provision was newly established, and the legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act which requires as one of the requisite for setting up the right of lease is different from the above legislative purpose.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)