The case holding that there is no opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, in case where the lessee of a house in the first floor, among newly-built row houses, completed a move-in report as "1st floor 201" in accordance with the erroneous statement of the present position at the time of the transfer of resident registration, and the house was registered as "101st floor"

The case holding that there is no opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act in the event that the lessee of the first floor, among the newly-built tenement houses, completed the moving-in report as “1st floor 201” in accordance with the erroneous statement of the present position at the time of the transfer of the resident registration, and the said house was registered as “101st floor on which

Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu18648 delivered on May 22, 1990 (Gong1990, 1344), 91Da1818 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2356), 94Da13176 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 64) and 94Da27427 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1963)

Plaintiff

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na17408 delivered on December 2, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's moving-in report was made on March 7, 191 with the "No. 102, the number of houses of the apartment house removed by the above non-party 1, among the apartment houses newly constructed by the co-defendant 1, the non-party 1, the above non-party 1, who was the co-defendant 1, entered the leased object under the lease agreement as "No. 102, the number of houses of the apartment house removed by the above non-party 1, and the fixed date was obtained on the lease agreement, and the plaintiff moved into the apartment house of this case after completion of the construction of the above apartment house. The plaintiff transferred the resident registration on June 28, 191, while the house of this case was located on the first floor, the plaintiff's moving-in report was made on the resident registration card of the non-party 1, 1992, with the indication of the number of houses attached to the above door 1, 2010, and the plaintiff's claim for sale of this case No.3.

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the above fact-finding by the court below or the plaintiff does not have the right to be reimbursed for the lease deposit from the auction proceeds of the house of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)