[1] Requirements for public announcement to meet the requirements for opposing power of resident registration under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

[2] In a case where Gap, a lessee of a rental apartment owned by Byung company, completed a move-in report by leasing an apartment and residing in it, Eul acquired the above apartment from Byung company and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its own name, and thereafter established a right to collateral security, the case holding that Gap acquired the opposing power of the right to lease immediately after the registration of ownership transfer in Eul's name has been completed

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which provides as the requirement for opposing power along with the delivery of a house, is prepared 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. Whether the validity of a public announcement of a lease is determined based on which the third party can recognize the existence of a right of lease as the resident registration. Therefore, it is insufficient to say that a public announcement method that can satisfy the requirements for opposing power of resident registration is simply a formal resident registration for the purpose of satisfying the requirements for opposing power of resident registration. It should be sufficient to say that the third party can recognize that the possession relationship indicated by the resident registration is the possession mediating the right of lease.

[2] In a case where Gap, a lessee of the leased apartment owned by Byung, completed a move-in report by leasing an apartment house from Eul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under his/her name while Eul was residing, the case holding that Eul acquired the opposing power of the right of lease immediately after the date of the move-in report, on the ground that although Eul and Eul acquired the ownership of the above apartment after the move-in contract was concluded with Eul and the said move-in report was made, Gap, not the owner, even though Eul acquired the ownership of the above apartment after the move-in report, the third party was able to be aware that he/she was residing in the day of the move-in report, and thus, the above resident registration was deemed to have performed the function of disclosing the lease from the date of the move-in report, and therefore Gap acquired the opposing power of the right of lease

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da32939 delivered on April 23, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 993) Supreme Court Decision 99Da59306 delivered on February 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 688)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 99Na19916, 19923 delivered on September 1, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides for the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a house, and as a means of public announcement that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a right of lease for the purpose of transaction safety. Whether the validity of a public announcement of a lease is determined depending on which the third party can recognize the existence of a right of lease as a resident registration. Thus, it is insufficient to say that a method of public announcement that can satisfy the requirements for opposing power of resident registration is simply a formal resident registration for the purpose of satisfying the requirements for opposing power of resident registration. Thus, the extent that the third party can recognize that the possession relationship indicated on the basis of resident registration is the possession that the right of lease is acting as a medium of the right of lease (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da32939, Apr. 23, 199; 9Da59306, Feb. 11, 200).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, on January 2, 1996, the defendant (the non-party, after the expiration of the lease term, agreed to sell the real estate of this case from the non-party company) with the non-party who leased the real estate of this case from Dongnam Housing Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), the lease deposit amount of this case was KRW 45 million, and the lease term was determined from January 2, 1996 to October 1996, the above deposit was paid to the non-party, and the lease was completed on January 12, 1996 after moving the real estate of this case into the non-party, and the non-party, the non-party, who continued to use the real estate of this case and profit-making it after the expiration of the lease term, received the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 1 to the non-party 4, as the non-party 96 joint venture company of this case, on the same terms and conditions as the non-party 94.5.

Therefore, even if the non-party, a lessor, acquired ownership of the instant real estate after concluding the said lease contract with the defendant, and even if the defendant acquired ownership of the instant real estate after the said move-in report, it appears that the non-party, the owner of the instant real estate, was residing from January 12, 1996 on the resident registration of the instant real estate, and thus, the third party could be aware that it was possession of the right to lease rather than the ownership of the defendant, and thus the above resident registration was performed the function of disclosing the lease from January 12, 1996 to the public. Therefore, the defendant acquired the opposing power of the said lease immediately after the non-party's transfer of ownership was completed with respect to the instant real estate, and the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party was completed on the same date as the non-party's transfer of ownership and the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party's first-class real estate was prior to the receipt order, the defendant can oppose

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff who succeeded to the status of the non-party (the non-party) who was awarded a successful bid for the real estate of this case is liable to pay the above lease deposit to the defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application of the Housing Lease Protection Act and opposing power

The purport of the Supreme Court Decision 9Da59306 Decided February 11, 200, cited in the ground of appeal, is that, in the event that a house owner completed a moving-in report and sells a house while residing in the same place, and at the same time he sold the house again leased from the buyer, it was difficult to recognize that the third party is the possession of the right to lease, not the ownership of the former owner and the lessee, before the new owner's transfer of ownership is made in the future. Thus, the tenant's resident registration is an effective announcement method of publicly announcing the lease on the date when the new owner's transfer of ownership is made, and therefore, has the opposing power as the lessee from the next day.

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

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)