(a) Continuation of opposing power of the housing lease and resident registration;

(b) Whether the opposing power of lease is lost in cases where only the lessee whose resident registration is as is transferred to another place temporarily (negative)

(a) The resident registration as stipulated in Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, as a requirement for a housing lessee to oppose a third party as the lease, must continue to exist in order not only for acquiring the opposing power but also for maintaining the opposing power;

B. If the lessee continues to occupy the house with his family members and only the lessee moves his/her resident registration to another place temporarily without having his/her family resident registration, the opposing power against the third party of the lease shall not be lost as a whole or ultimately, as long as it cannot be seen as a deviation from his/her resident registration.

Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1695 Decided February 24, 1987

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 87Na423 delivered on December 10, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal:

A resident registration as stipulated in Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, as a requirement for a tenant to oppose a third party as a lease, must continue to exist in order to maintain the opposing power as well as the acquisition of the opposing power (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1695, Feb. 24, 1987, in the case of a single-household owner). However, even if the tenant continues to occupy the house with his family members, the tenant's resident registration shall not be lost as a whole, as long as the tenant's resident registration cannot be seen as a deviation from his/her resident registration as a whole or ultimately, even if he/she moves to another place temporarily with his/her family members.

According to the decision of the court below, on April 18, 1984, the defendant completed the resident registration at the domicile of the leased house of this case with his children and occupied and used it, and the defendant left the defendant's resident registration as of February 27, 1985 after the establishment of the right to collateral security, as of February 27, 1985, as of the loan relationship, to which he had a moving-in report to the domicile of the leased house of this case had been made again on March 18, 198, and even though he had a moving-in report as of March 18 of this year

If there are these circumstances, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s resident registration will be treated the same as the continued existence of the Defendant’s resident registration. Therefore, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, who acquired real estate in an auction procedure based on the right to collateral security established prior to the eviction for the reason of the eviction from the Defendant’s resident registration address, could not oppose the Plaintiff as a lease, is identical with the foregoing, but the conclusion recognizing the opposing power is justifiable. Therefore

Therefore, 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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)