Whether the lease of a house shall continue to continue to exist during the lease period of a resident registration which is a requisite for opposing power.

In light of the purport that Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act gives strong opposing power to the housing lessee in the real right registered with the requirements for delivery of the house and resident registration, in the housing lease without any other method of public announcement, the requirements for opposing power such as delivery of the house and resident registration should not be satisfied only when the opposing power is acquired, and it is necessary to continue to exist in order to maintain the opposing power.

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 86Na360 delivered on July 4, 1986

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. First, we examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, based on macroficial evidence, the non-party who was the owner at the time of September 18, 1982, entered into a lease agreement with the term of lease from October 17 to 12 months of the same year with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list of the judgment below, and all of the deposit was paid until the transfer of the above real estate to October 17 of the same year, and the move-in report under the Resident Registration Act was completed on November 3 of the same year (the defendant was a sole household) and the defendant, on April 23, 1983, moved his resident registration to the address of the above real estate in Jung-gu in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul and recognized the fact that the resident registration was transferred to the address of the above real estate again in the Housing Lease Protection Act, and even if the defendant continued to occupy the above real estate, the above right of opposing the above lease became extinct as long as he acquired the above real estate after his move-out of his resident registration, the lease claim against the plaintiff.

However, in light of the purpose of Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act giving strong opposing power to the housing lessee in the real right registered with the requirements for delivery of the house and resident registration in the Housing Lease Protection Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the requirements for setting up against the delivery of the house and the resident registration should continue to exist even in order to maintain its opposing power in the Housing Lease Protection Act without any other method for public announcement.

2. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above assertion on the ground that even if the temporary resident registration was transferred to another place as a result of continuing the possession of the house in its reasoning, the acquired opposing power continues to exist, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act concerning the requisite for setting up against the lease of a house in the light of a pen, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)