In a case where the issue was whether a Korean national Gap obtained opposing power under Article 3(1) of the former Housing Lease Protection Act by reporting the relocation of his/her residence under the former Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans, the case affirming the judgment below that it is difficult to interpret Article 9 of the former Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans as the provision that a report on the relocation of his/her residence to a Korean national residing abroad under Article 3(1) of the former Housing Lease Insurance Act should substitute for the resident registration, which is the requisite requirement under Article 3(

Articles 6 and 9 of the former Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (amended by Act No. 8500 of Jul. 13, 2007); Article 3(1) of the former Housing Lease Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8923 of Mar. 21, 2008)

Applicant

Respondent (Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorney Lee Sung-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Western District Court Order 201Ra185 dated May 16, 2012

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the respondent who is a Korean national residing abroad with Canada is not entitled to the above provision of 10,000 won for lease of the house of this case from the non-party around August 25, 2006 and the period from August 25, 2010, and it is difficult to recognize that the above provision of 10,000 won for the overseas Korean resident registration card transfer under the Housing Lease Protection Act was identical to the above 3rd Korean resident registration card transfer under the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (hereinafter referred to as the "Overseas Koreans Act"), and it is difficult to recognize that the above provision of 10,000 won for the purpose of 3rd Korean resident registration card transfer to the same domestic resident registration card transfer as the above 9,000 won and the above provision of 20,000 won for the purpose of 19-483 resident registration card transfer to the same domestic resident registration card transfer as the above 9,000 won.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of reappeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 9 of the Overseas Koreans Act or the requirements for opposing power as provided

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)