[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] The case holding that the resident registration is not valid as a requisite to set up against the Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which is registered in the "53-6" or the "53-6" which is a lot number on the registry, and is not in conformity with the "53-6"

[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, shall be deemed to have been 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. Thus, whether a lease has an effect of public announcement of resident registration 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 pertinent lease building due to the resident registration

[2] The case holding that the resident registration is not valid as a requisite to set up against the Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which is registered in the "53-6" or the "53-6" which is a lot number on the registry, and is not in conformity with the "53-6" which is a lot number on 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 99Da44762, 44779 delivered on December 7, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 146), Supreme Court Decision 99Da6212 delivered on April 7, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1148), Supreme Court Decision 200Da1549, 1556 delivered on April 21, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1253)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jae-nam, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Yang Jong-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na40783 delivered on December 24, 1999

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined on April 10, 1994 that the defendant's wife and non-party 1's family members, including the defendant, occupy the building of this case after setting lease deposit amounting to 18 million won or one year of lease term, and entered the building of this case at around that time. The defendant, while making a move-in report on April 23, 1994, omitted the entry of "san" number of the actual lot number of the building of this case, and registered as the resident registration number of the building of this case as the ( Address 2 omitted), and determined that the plaintiff was registered as the transferee of the building of this case on August 3, 1992 after completing the establishment registration of the building of this case and the building of this case on the land of this case, and that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was registered as the transferee of the building of this case and was registered as the owner of the building of this case under the name of this case, and was registered as the owner of the building of this case.

2. However, since the resident registration stipulated as the requirement for opposing power along with the delivery of a house under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act is deemed to have been prepared by a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of the right of lease for the safety of transaction, the issue of whether the resident registration has the validity of disclosing the lease shall be determined by generally accepted social norms, depending on whether it is possible to recognize that the lessee is registered as a person who has an address or domicile in the relevant lease building as the resident registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da8322, May 25, 1999; 9Da15597, Sept. 3, 199; 9Da4762, 44779, Dec. 7, 199).

However, even if all the facts revealed in the facts established by the court below are considered, the defendant's resident registration in the "Yju-si ( Address 1 omitted)," which is the actual lot number of the building of this case, or in the "Yju-si ( Address 4 omitted)" which is not in conformity with the "Yju-si ( Address 2 omitted)" which is the real lot number of the building of this case, shall not be recognized by the defendant as being registered as the owner of the address of this case. Thus, the resident registration registered in ( Address 2 omitted) in the "Yju-si" shall not be deemed as valid as the defendant's public announcement method of the lease, and it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff, the transferee of the building of this case, was aware that the actual lot number of the building of this case differs from that of the building of this case, or that the defendant intended to move-in as the actual lot number of the building of this case to his domicile, does not affect the conclusion of whether it

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant could oppose the plaintiff who is the transferee of the building of this case as the right of lease on the premise that the defendant's resident registration is valid as a method of public announcement of the lease of this case for the above reasons, shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the resident registration as stipulated in Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act. The part of the

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)