[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 the parcel number of a house, such as a cadastral map, land cadastre, and building register, becomes different from a parcel number on the register after a registration of ownership preservation was made, whether it becomes a method of publication of a valid lease based on a parcel number on the land cadastre and building register (affirmative)

[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, is established as a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a right of lease for the safety of transaction. Thus, whether the resident registration is effective or not shall be determined depending on whether the lessee can be recognized as a person who has an address or residence in the relevant lease building due to his resident registration under the general social norms.

[2] The method of transferring a house and publicly announcing a lease of a resident registration is prepared in lieu of the registration method. Since the third party is aware of the matters concerning the indication of a house and the relationship of a house depending on the ordinary registry, in principle, if the resident registration as a method of publicly announcing a lease is inconsistent with the current status of a house on the registry, it shall not be deemed a valid method of public announcement. However, if the lot number of a house, such as cadastral map, land cadastre, building register, etc., is registered as a parcel number after subdivision due to the division of land, but it is still registered as a parcel number before subdivision in the registry, if the tenant indicated the lot number and the number of a house are identical to the land cadastre and building register in the resident registration, it is reasonable to view that the tenant can be deemed as having a third party's address in the registry even if it is different from the entry in the registry.

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da8322 delivered on May 25, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1266), Supreme Court Decision 99Da15597 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2037), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1549, 1556 delivered on April 21, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1253) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Da4762, 4479 delivered on December 7, 199 (Gong200Sang, 146)

Plaintiff

The bankruptcy trustee, non-party, and one other, of the 4th National Credit Cooperatives

Daegu District Court Decision 2001Na1391 delivered on August 22, 2001

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 as the requirement for opposing power along with the delivery of a house. Since the resident registration is established as 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 issue of whether the resident registration is effective shall be determined depending on whether the lessee can be recognized as a person who has an address or domicile in the relevant lease building as a resident registration under the general social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da8322, May 25, 1999; 9Da15597, Sept. 3, 1999; 200Da1549, Apr. 21, 2000; 200Da15556, Apr. 21, 200).

However, the method of transferring a house and publicly announcing a lease of a resident registration is prepared in lieu of the registration method. Since the third party is aware of the matters concerning the indication of a house and the relationship of a house based on the ordinary registry, in principle, the method of publicly announcing the ownership of a house is not valid unless the current status of a house on the registry as a method of publicly announcing the lease is inconsistent with that of a house on the registry as a method of registering the ownership of a house. However, although the lot number indication of a house such as cadastral map, land cadastre, building registry, etc. is registered as a parcel number after a partition of land due to the division of land after the preservation of ownership was completed, if the tenant is still registered as a parcel number before the division in the registry, it is reasonable to view that the tenant is different from the entry in the register of land and building registry if he/she displayed the lot number and the same number of a house at the same time, even if it is different from

The court below held on April 4, 1981 that, at the time of registration preservation of the apartment of this case, the number of the apartment of this case on the registry was divided into ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) on December 27, 1988, and the lot number on the registry of the apartment of this case was changed to ( Address 2 omitted) and that the lot number is still registered on the registry until now. However, on July 30, 1988, ( Address 1 omitted) was divided into ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) the apartment of this case was ( Address 2 omitted) on the same day, and ( Address 2 omitted) the apartment of this case was revoked ( Address 3 omitted), and the building management ledger also stated the apartment of this case as the lot number of the apartment of this case on the registry of this case, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the apartment of this case's residential registration as the registration number of the apartment of this case, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to recognize the plaintiff's.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)