Whether a person who rents a house after provisional registration can oppose the person who has made the principal registration after the lease.

On November 26, 1979, the provisional registration was made in the name of the plaintiff, and thereafter, on March 23, 1981, which was after the defendants moved in the above provisional registration before March 5, 1981 and completed the move-in report. In case where the principal registration of transfer of ownership based on the above provisional registration was made in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the above building on March 23, 1981, the priority order of the above principal registration shall be retroactive to the date of completion of the above provisional registration, which was before March 5, 1981. Thus, the plaintiff constitutes a person who acquired a real right prior to the illegal enforcement of the proviso of

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Paragraph (2) of the Addenda to the Housing Lease Protection Act

Gaba

Kim Jong-soo et al.

Seoul District Court's Northern Branch (81Gahap354)

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

In relation to the plaintiff, the defendant Kim Jong-tae shall display 3 square meters in the annexed sheet among 16th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 16th 2th 16th 16th 16th 2th 2th 13th 2th 2th 16th 2th 16th 2th 2th 16th 2th 16th 2th 2th

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a judgment of provisional execution

The original judgment shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The facts that the building recorded in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case") was originally owned by the non-party. The building of this case was received on November 26, 1979 under the name of the plaintiff for the purpose of securing the claim and provisional registration for preserving the right to claim transfer of ownership was made under the name of the plaintiff, Dongdaemun-gu District Court of Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, registry office on November 26, 1979, and thereafter, the plaintiff and the non-party were entitled to a provisional registration on January 21, 1980, and the provisional registration was received on March 23, 1981 by the original copy of the above provisional registration before the lawsuit was filed, No. 6614 of the same registry office on March 23, 1981, and the defendant Kim Jong-ok was not entitled to a dispute over the above provisional registration from the non-party 1 to the above 16th 2nd 2nd 2nd 16th 16th 2th 16th 16th 16th 20.

However, the defendants leased each of the above possession parts from the above non-party as shown in the separate sheet, and thereafter, the plaintiff acquired the obligation to return the lease deposit to the defendants of the above non-party while the above lease contract was explicitly renewed. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that if the plaintiff did not return each of the above lease deposit, the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's request for surrender of this case. Thus, in light of the above evidence Nos. 5, 8, 9 (each charter contract) and Nos. 6 (excluding the receipt that is not trusted later) of the non-party witness's testimony, and the whole purport of the pleading of the above witness's testimony (excluding the part that is not trusted later), it is acknowledged that the lease contract was established as alleged by the defendants. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the plaintiff acquired the obligation to return the lease deposit, some of the non-party witness's testimony (excluding the above trust portion) in accordance with the above evidence No. 2 and the purport of pleading cannot be acknowledged otherwise, and the above dispute is groundless.

In other words, the Defendants: (a) leased their respective possession portion from the above Nonparty and completed a move-in report on March 5, 1981 on the date of entry in the aforementioned list; and (b) on March 23, 1981, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the building of this case; (c) the Defendants may oppose the Plaintiff who acquired ownership after March 5, 1981 under the Housing Lease Protection Act; (d) accordingly, they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request without being refunded each of the above lease deposits; (b) based on the evidence No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4 (each certified copy of resident registration) as alleged by the Defendants, the right to lease was registered before and after the above provisional registration; (c) the ownership transfer was registered after the date of entry into force on March 1, 1981; (d) the right to lease of this case shall be deemed to have been registered after the date of entry into force of the above provisional registration; (d) the Act shall be deemed to have been effective on the third party, as the above provisional registration.

In addition, even if the plaintiff does not have the obligation to return the above lease deposit directly to the same defendant, the defendant Kim Sung-si exercised the security right for the plaintiff's claim amounting to KRW 9,000,000 against the non-party and completed the registration of ownership transfer as above with respect to the building of this case amounting to KRW 25,000,000 at its market price. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the remaining amount of KRW 16,00,000 after deducting the above amount from KRW 25,000,000 to the above non-party. Since the above non-party is insolvent, it is unnecessary to examine the above non-party's claim amounting to KRW 16,00,000 against the above non-party as the repayment creditor of the above lease deposit amounting to KRW 16,00,000,000, and the above non-party's claim amounting to KRW 4,000,000 for the above non-party's execution of the security right of this case.

Therefore, in this case where the defendants are otherwise entitled to possess each of their respective possession parts of the building of this case without any assertion or proof, the defendants are obligated to order each of their possession parts to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the performance of the plaintiff is justified, and the judgment of the court below in this conclusion is just and all of the defendants' appeals are dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court below is delivered with the application of Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the Civil Execution Act as to the imposition of the costs of lawsuit, and Article 19 of the Civil Execution Act as to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge) Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge)