[1] Criteria for determining the validity of resident registration as a requisite for counterclaim under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

[2] In a case where a separate registration has been made as to a multi-household detached house under the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, but the multi-unit building management ledger has not been prepared, whether the move-in report, in which part or the lessee of the whole building entered only the lot number without indication of the section for exclusive use, is a valid publication method of the lease

[3] In a case where a single house and a multi-household house are constructed on the same lot number site, and the number of units and units of each unit is different from the registration amount, and where a collective building management ledger with the same content as the register is prepared for a single house, the method of moving-in report as a valid public announcement method for the lease of the single house

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which provides as the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a house, has been established by a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a lease for the safety of transaction. Thus, whether the public announcement of a lease is effective or not shall be determined depending on whether it can be recognized that a lessee is registered as a person who has an address or residence in the relevant lease building due to a common sense of social norms.

[2] Notwithstanding the fact that the so-called multi-household detached house which was originally constructed with a building permit obtained and whose sectional ownership is impossible in the building management ledger was later registered as a sectionally partitioned house under the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, if the competent authority did not prepare a multi-household building management ledger by keeping the general building management ledger registered as a sectionally partitioned house in its previous location under Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act, it is sufficient for the lessee to enter only the lot number in the case of a moving-in report by leasing part or all of the above building and making a moving-in report under Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act, and further, there is no obligation or need to enter any part of the above building in the indication of the section of exclusive ownership. The investigation of whether the lessee actually leased and resided in the above building should be conducted under the responsibility of an interested party who intends to establish a security interest in the above building as in the case of a detached house. Thus, if the above lessee was registered as the resident

[3] In a case where a detached house and a multi-household house are constructed on one site together, and the number of each sectional ownership of a detached house and a multi-household house is the same as the registration injury, but the number of units is different, and furthermore, in the case where the above detached house are prepared up to the collective building management ledger indicating the same lot number as the above registry and the number of units as the above registry with respect to the above detached house, the lessee of the above detached house shall be deemed to have completed a move-in report in addition to its lot number and the number of units on

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Article 9 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [3] Article 3 (1) of the

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 9Da8322 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1266) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da44762, 44779 delivered on December 7, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 146) Supreme Court Decision 9Da6212 delivered on April 7, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1148), Supreme Court Decision 200Da8069 Delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong200Ha, 163), Supreme Court Decision 201Da63216 delivered on December 27, 201 (Gong202, 359Sang, 1497) / [37Da19849 delivered on April 197, 197] Supreme Court Decision 200Da38979 delivered on June 29, 2009

Plaintiff

Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd.

Busan District Court Decision 2001Na7091 delivered on October 25, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the judgment below

원심판결 및 원심이 인용한 제1심판결의 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 원고가 1996. 4. 16.경 소외 1로부터 등기부상 '부산 동래구 (주소 생략) ○○빌라 △△△동 □□□호 벽돌조 슬래브지붕 2층 단독주택 1층 37.84㎡, 2층 39.87㎡, 대지권 소유권 53900분의 5591'로 표시된 주택(이하 '이 사건 주택'이라고 한다)을 임차보증금 18,000,000원에 임차한 사실, 원고의 주민등록은 위 임대차계약 이전인 1994. 12. 6.에 이미 '부산 동래구 (주소 생략) (45/5) ○○빌라-◇◇◇'로 전입신고가 마쳐져 있었던 사실, 한편 이 사건 주택의 부지인 위 부산 동래구 (주소 생략) 대지에는 이 사건 주택 외에도 등기부상 1동의 건물표시가 '부산 동래구 (주소 생략) ○○빌라 ∇∇동 철근콘크리트조 슬래브지붕 4층 다세대 주택'으로 된 다세대 주택이 건립되어 있는 사실, 이 사건 주택의 근저당권자였던 피고가 이 사건 주택에 대하여 부산지방법원 동부지원 99타경23678호로 신청한 부동산임의경매 사건에서 집행법원은, 원고가 이 사건 주택에 대한 주민등록 전입신고를 그 등기부상 표시된 동·호수와는 다른 동·호수로 마쳐 주택임대차보호법상의 대항력을 갖추지 못한 임차인이라고 보아, 이 사건 주택의 낙찰대금 중 실제 배당할 금액 32,987,524원을 제1심 피고 소외 2(소액임차인)에게 제1순위로 금 8,701,514원(소액임차보증금 7,000,000원과 피고에게 배당하고 남은 1,701,514원을 합산한 금액), 근저당권자인 피고에게 제2순위로 금 24,286,010원씩 배당하고 원고에게는 아무런 배당을 하지 않는 내용의 배당표를 작성한 사실을 각 인정한 다음, 위 인정 사실에 의하면, 원고가 이 사건 주택의 등기부상 동·호수 표시와 다른 '부산 동래구 (주소 생략) ○○빌라-◇◇◇'로 전입신고를 마쳤고, 이 사건 주택 부지에 2개의 건물이 존재한다 하더라도, 단독주택인 이 사건 주택의 지번을 정확히 기입하여 전입신고를 마친 이상 그 주민등록은 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 임대차의 공시방법으로서 유효하다고 판단하였다.

2. Judgment of party members

기록에 의하면, 원심이 확정한 바와 같이 부산 동래구 (주소 생략) 대지에는 이 사건 주택 외에 지하 1층, 지상 4층의 다세대 주택이 건립되어 있는데, 이 사건 주택과 위 다세대 주택 모두에 대하여 1993. 7. 30.자로 소외 3 앞으로 소유권보존등기가 마쳐지면서, 각 등기부 표제부의 표시가 이 사건 주택에 대하여는 '부산 동래구 (주소 생략) ○○빌라 △△△동 □□□호'로, 위 다세대 주택의 각 구분소유 부분에 대하여는 '위 같은 지번 ○○빌라 ∇∇동 □□□호', '위 같은 지번 ○○빌라 ∇∇동 ☆☆☆호' 등으로 기재된 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 한편 이 사건 주택에 관하여 1993. 8. 5.자로 소재지란에 '부산 동래구 (주소 생략)', 명칭 또는 번호란에 '○○빌라 △△△동 □□□호'로, 전유부분의 면적 및 용도란에 '1층 37.84㎡, 2층 39.87㎡, 단독주택'으로 각 기재된 집합건축물대장이 작성되어 있는 사실을 엿볼 수 있다.

However, since the resident registration of Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which provides as the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a house, was established by a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of the lease for the safety of transaction, the issue of which resident registration is effective shall be determined by generally accepted social norms as to whether the lessee can be recognized as the resident registration of the relevant lease building. Thus, if the so-called multi-household house is constructed with a building permit obtained as its original unit, and the building management ledger has been registered as a sectional unit under the Multi-Unit Residential Building Protection Act and fails to prepare a multi-household building management ledger with the previous multi-household house registered as the unit building, the competent authority is sufficient to enter the lot number of the building in the case where the lessee leases part or all of the building as the unit, and if the tenant actually resides in the building, it shall be deemed that the above multi-household building has a duty to enter the building in the building and the above multi-household building as the unit of detached house, and it shall be deemed that the tenant has a right to register or the above multi-unit building.

Therefore, although the number of the plaintiff's transfer of the house in this case and the number of the move-in report for resident registration are consistent with the lot number of the house in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the above resident registration of the plaintiff is invalid as the method of public announcement of the above lease because it is different from the number of the above house units and units on the registry and the aggregate building management ledger, but the above resident registration of the plaintiff is invalid as the method of public announcement of the above lease. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the opposing power of the lessee in the Housing Lease Protection Act, which affected the judgment that the plaintiff's moving-in report for

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)