[1] The standard for determining whether a lessee who leased a house under construction and completed a resident registration has the effect of publicly announcing the lease of a house under construction

[2] In a case where the resident registration number of a lessee who completed a lease of a house under construction corresponds to the current status of the house at the time, but thereafter, the indication of a house on the registry changes due to a change of circumstances, whether it is valid by means of public notification to a third party, which has an interest on the registry on the premise that the resident registration changes (negative with qualification)

[1] Whether the registration of a tenant who completed a lease of a house under construction has already been made, and the registration of preservation of ownership has the effect of disclosing the lease in relation to a third party who acquired a mortgage based on it to have an interest in the register, shall be determined based on whether the third party can be viewed as a person who has an address or residence under ordinary social norms and can be recognized as being registered as a person who has an address or residence.

[2] Even if the address on the resident registration of a lessee who completed a lease on a part before a registration of preservation of ownership was made for a house under construction, is identical to the current status of the house at that time, and if the change of the situation leads to a change of the situation thereafter to the indication of the house on the register, barring special circumstances, such as that the address on the resident registration becomes the basis of the entry on the building management ledger pursuant to Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act, it is difficult to recognize that the third party who had an interest on the register was registered as the resident on the premise of the change of the resident registration as the resident on the original resident registration, and thus, the resident registration cannot be a method of publication

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da29530 delivered on November 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3820), Supreme Court Decision 97Da47828 delivered on January 23, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 614), Supreme Court Decision 99Da8322 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1266) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da5474 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1524), Supreme Court Decision 97Da1024 delivered on July 11, 199 (Gong197Ha, 2489), Supreme Court Decision 97Da8939 delivered on April 19, 199)

National Bank of Korea (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Park Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na18737 delivered on February 2, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below comprehensively based on the evidence adopted by the plaintiff's judgment, and found that the non-party 1 was the first floor above the ground that the non-party 1 was constructed with multiple houses on September 12, 1994, and the third floor attached to the judgment below (hereinafter "real estate of this case") as the deposit money for lease was determined as 38,00,00 won, and then it appears that the non-party 2 did not have the effect of being registered as the non-party 3's tenant's registered address at the time of this case's construction permit, and that the non-party 1 was registered as the non-party 3's residential building's registered address at the time of this case's construction permit and the non-party 2's registered address at the same time as the non-party 3 residential building's registered address at the same time as the non-party 1's registered address at the same time of this case'.

2. The issue of whether a lessee’s resident registration who completed a lease of a house under construction has already been made a preservation of ownership after the tenant’s resident registration was made and the mortgage has been acquired on the basis of it and publicly announced in relation to a third party, should be judged from the perspective of the third party, on the basis of the general social norms, whether the lessee can be recognized as having been registered as his domicile or residence. Thus, even if the tenant’s resident registration entered in the resident registration which was completed before a preservation of ownership was made coincide with the current status of the house at that time, if the change of the situation changed later due to the change of the situation, barring any special circumstance, such as that the resident registration address was based on the entry in the building management ledger pursuant to Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da8322, May 25, 199), and as a third party who had an interest in the register on the premise of the changed change, it is difficult to recognize that the tenant has registered his domicile or residence in the house at issue.

According to the facts established by the court below, the first floor and the third floor were originally permitted to be multi-household detached houses including the part corresponding to the present real estate in Yangcheon-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), and the registration of preservation of ownership was completed by dividing it into each floor and unit of multi-household houses after obtaining approval for use. Accordingly, unlike the first floor and unit, the indication on the registry of the present real estate in this case became specific, and the plaintiff also completed the registration of creation of mortgage on the premise of the changed indication. The defendant completed the registration of establishment of ownership on the present real estate in this case, stating that the present state of the house at the time of the construction permission was "Seoul Yangcheon-gu ( Address omitted)" based on the present state of the house at the time of the construction permission, and it was not corrected in accordance with the indication and registration on the registry, and it was impossible to find that the defendant's address at the time of registration was inconsistent with the present state of the present real estate in this case's address and the method of registration of preservation of ownership was not the one whose domicile was changed before the plaintiff's address was registered.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the defendant's resident registration entered his address in Yangcheon-gu Seoul (city omitted) has no effect of disclosing the lease of the real estate in this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)