Criteria for determining whether the public announcement of the lease of resident registration under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act is effective;

In Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the resident registration which provides as the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a house is deemed to have been established by the public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a right of lease for the safety of transaction. Therefore, the validity of the public announcement of a lease is recognized depending on whether the lessee can be recognized as the resident registration in light of the general social norms, and if the lessee erroneously makes a resident registration on the lot number of the leased building and another lot number and then the relevant public official adjusts the resident registration in accordance with the real lot number, the tenant acquired the opposing power only after the resident registration is arranged.

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Jeonju District Court Decision 86Na549 delivered on June 4, 1987

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 provides the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a house in order to ensure the safety of transaction, since the resident registration is deemed to have been prepared by a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of leasehold rights for the purpose of safety of transaction, the issue of which resident registration is effective shall be determined based on whether the resident registration can be recognized as the person who has an address or a residence in the relevant leased building as the resident registration under the general social norms. According to the duly established judgment of the court below, the lot number of the building in this case is the ( Address 1 omitted) of the Riri-si, but the defendant was corrected by the method that the relevant public official stated the same day as the date when the moving-in report was made ( Address 1 omitted) around August 3, 1984, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the defendant's resident registration that was obviously inconsistent with the real lot number and the real number of the building in this case is valid after the completion of the lease registration number.

The court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. In other grounds of appeal, the defendant's attorney asserted that the defendant's domicile on the resident registration of the building of this case was corrected ex officio from the Lee-si ( Address 2 omitted) to the actual lot number of the building of this case and at least the plaintiff is the owner who was awarded a successful bid, and at least the relation against the plaintiff should be viewed as acquiring the opposing power retroactively at the time when the moving-in report on the resident registration was completed. However, since the new facts alleged only at the time of the appeal and did not have been asserted in the court below, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment below.

3. Ultimately, 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)