[1] Criteria for determining the validity of resident registration, which is a requisite for setting up a lease under the Housing Lease Protection Act

[2] The case holding that a lessee has no opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, in case where the tenant's resident registration is different from the actual indication on the registry as a result of the resident registration made in accordance with the indication attached to the

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which distributed dividends to a person who raised an objection to a distribution on the ground that the tenant's dividends are not merely a tenant with the opposing power without confirming the amount of

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides for opposing power along with the delivery of a house, and as a requirement for opposing power, 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 the lease for the safety of transaction. Thus, whether the resident registration has the validity of disclosing a lease shall be determined depending on whether it can be recognized that the lessee is registered as a person who has an address or residence in the relevant building due to the resident registration under the general social norms.

[2] The case holding that, when a lessee concludes a lease contract, if the lessee moves into the leased house in accordance with the name of the unit attached to the present door unlike the indication on the registry, moves into the house in accordance with the change of the lease contract, and thereafter obtains a fixed date on the lease contract after entering it in the resident registration card, the lessee's resident registration made with an indication inconsistent with the actual indication on the leased house cannot be deemed as valid as the method of public notification of the lease, and thus, the lessee has no opposing power, and thus, the lessee does not have the right to receive a preferential repayment from the auction price of the house

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the lessee should distribute to the applicant for compulsory auction the total amount of dividends paid to the lessee for reasons that the lessee has no opposing power, on the ground that the lessee has no opposing power, even though it should have determined the amount of enforcement claim under the name of the applicant for the compulsory auction and have determined the amount of dividends after determining the amount of enforcement claim in the name of the debtor for the compulsory auction, in case where the creditor who filed for compulsory auction had made an objection to the distribution schedule against the lessee, even though the amount of enforcement claim should have been paid to the lessee under the name of the debtor for the compulsory auction was confirmed.

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [3] Articles 193 and 590 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da27427 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1963) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu3370 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1161) Supreme Court Decision 94Da13176 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 64) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu18648 delivered on May 22, 1990 (Gong190, 1344), Supreme Court Decision 95Da177 delivered on August 11, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3126), Supreme Court Decision 209Da419638 delivered on April 16, 196 (Gong1964 delivered on August 24, 199)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na20552 delivered on October 27, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides for opposing power along with the delivery of a house. 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 the lease for the safety of transaction, the issue of whether the resident registration is effective or not shall be determined depending on whether it can be recognized that the lessee is registered as a person who has an address or domicile in the relevant building with the resident registration under the general social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu3370, Jun. 27, 1989; 94Da13176, Nov. 22, 1994; 94Da27427, Apr. 28, 1995).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the housing of this case which was the object of the compulsory auction case of Seoul District Court 94,982 is part of one building composed of 6 households, including the half floor. The above building is registered as 101,102, 101, 102, 201, and 202 on the registry, but the half floor is 101,102, 202 on each house established in the above building and the half floor is 201, 202, 202, 301, 202 on each of the above houses, and 94, 201, 300, 302 on each of the above houses, and the defendant's 20,000, 94, 1992, and 30,000,000,000 won and 9,00,000 won and 19,00,00 won.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized only the fact that the plaintiff, as a creditor who claimed compulsory execution based on the executory title against the non-party 1, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 22,040,029 to the defendant as a creditor who claimed compulsory execution, and determined that the defendant raised an objection against the non-party 1, and that the amount distributed to the defendant should be distributed to the plaintiff in full to the plaintiff on the ground that the non-party 1 was not a tenant with the opposing power. However, although the court below determined that the amount of enforcement claim under the plaintiff's name should have been distributed to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was not a tenant with the opposing power, the court below decided that the plaintiff should pay to the plaintiff the total amount distributed to the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff should be distributed to the defendant on the basis of any kind of annual interest in the distribution schedule.

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 Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)