[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 tenant's resident registration is valid by means of the public announcement of the lease in the case where the tenant's resident registration was made where the number of houses was stated in the aggregate building register as 101, but the number of houses was entered in the register as 101, in the case where the tenant's resident registration was entered in the register as 101, before the tenant's registration of ownership preservation was made and the house was entered in the register

[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 lease for the safety of transaction. Thus, whether a lease has the validity of a public announcement of a 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 relevant lease building as a resident

[2] The case holding that the tenant's resident registration is valid by means of the public announcement of the lease in the case where the tenant's resident registration was made where the number of houses was stated in the aggregate building register as 101, but the number of houses was stated in the register as 101, in the case where the tenant's resident registration was entered in the register of the aggregate building register, before the establishment of the aggregate building register and the registration of ownership preservation was made

[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, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1266), 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 200Da8069 Delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong200Ha, 163), Supreme Court Decision 201Da63216 delivered on December 27, 2001 (Gong202, 359) and Supreme Court Decision 200Da82949 delivered on March 28, 201 (Gong2009)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Kim Full-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2001Na8278 delivered on October 31, 2001

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on January 1, 1997, the court below held that the defendant's first floor of 101 multi-household houses located in the 1st floor area of 10,000,000, and the lease term of 1997 from January 26, 1997 to January 25, 198 and concluded a lease contract with the defendant to lease the above 10th floor of 1st floor of 10,000, 4-10, 4-101, each of the above 10th floor of 1st apartment houses located in the 10th floor area of 10th floor of 197, 4th floor of 10,000, 4th floor of 1st floor of 1st floor of 1st floor of 1st floor of 197, 4th floor of 2nd floor of 196, 3rd floor of 197.

However, since a resident registration which provides as the requirement for opposing power along with the delivery of a house under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act is established as a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a house for the safety of transaction, the issue of which resident registration has the effect of disclosing the lease shall be determined according to the general social norms as to whether the lessee can be recognized as a person who has an address or residence (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da8322 delivered on May 25, 199). Thus, as decided by the court below, if the defendant leases 101 of the first floor, which is the house of this case, before the preparation of the aggregate building register or the registration of initial ownership was made, and the house was also entered in the aggregate building register, but it was also entered in the register as "101" on the 101st floor, and it is reasonable that the tenant was registered as the person who actually entered in the register or the place of the first floor, and thus, the defendant was registered as the person who actually entered in the register.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on resident registration under the Housing Lease Protection Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)