(a) Criteria to determine whether the resident registration as an opposing power provided for in Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act has the effect of disclosing any lease;

B. Whether the opposing power has been acquired after the tenant's resident registration was arranged where the tenant's resident registration card entered differently from the actual multi-household resident registration mark.

A. 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 established 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. Therefore, whether the validity of a public announcement of a lease is 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 the resident registration under the general social norms.

B. In the event that the resident registration of the same club termed at the time of the lease of multi-household housing was transferred and the building management ledger was prepared after the completion inspection was completed, and the same use of the building was changed and the registration ledger was prepared at the time of the preparation of the registration ledger, the tenant was aware that, while the voluntary auction procedure was being conducted upon application by the mortgagee for the relevant house, the tenant reported the right to return the lease deposit and demand a distribution of the right to claim the refund of the lease deposit to an auction court based on the lease agreement of the fixed date, but later he was aware that the house was changed rapidly, and if the head of Dong filed an objection against the resident registration record and had the resident correct the same as the above in the registration ledger, the tenant’s resident registration that is inconsistent with the actual use of the house cannot be deemed as valid as the announcement method of the lease, and the tenant acquired the opposing power only

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1573 Decided November 10, 1987 (Gong1988,94). Supreme Court Decision 89Meu3370 Decided June 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1161) B. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu18648 Decided May 22, 1990 (Gong190,1344)

The Bank of Korea, Inc.

Defendant (Attorney Choi Sung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 93Na6031 delivered on January 18, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

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 deemed to have been established by a public announcement method whereby a third party clearly recognizes the existence of a right of lease for the purpose of transaction safety. Thus, whether the validity of a public announcement of a lease is determined depending on whether the resident registration can be recognized as a person who has an address or domicile in the lease building in question due to the resident registration under the general social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1573, Nov. 10, 1987; 89Meu3370, Jun. 27, 1989).

According to the court below's lawful determination, the defendant newly constructed the above multi-household building on the ground of Suwon-si ( Address 1 omitted) in Suwon-si, and occupied the building of this case in D, E, E, and E, the name of Non-party 2, who is the wife, from the above non-party 1 and 3, and transferred the building of this case under the name of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who is the wife, to Suwon-gu ( Address 1 omitted) 101, and obtained a fixed date of the lease contract. After completion inspection for the above multi-household house, the above multi-household house was entered as Dong, and the registration ledger was entered as Dong-dong and the registration ledger was prepared as Dong-dong, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in order to Non-party 1 and the registration of the non-party 5, who was the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, the above registration of this case's non-party 1, the right to lease of this case and the registration deposit was made in order.

Although there is no lack in the judgment of the court below, it is just to reject the defendant's assertion because it is judged that the defendant's initial resident registration is not valid as a public announcement method for the lease of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the right of lease of housing and its opposing power

In addition, since the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the building of this case was leased by the defendant at the time when he acquired the right to collateral security on the building of this case, the claim of this case, which denies the opposing power of the defendant, violates the principle of good faith. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since it was a new fact in the final appeal and did not assert it up to the original instance. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)