202du1748 Disposition of revocation of move-in report

A

The head of Sin Sacheon-si

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu8706 delivered on January 15, 2002

July 9, 2002

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The court below, based on the evidence employed by the plaintiff, found the move-in report to the defendant on May 1, 200 when the plaintiff moved to a building B without permission around October 1997. However, the defendant did not accept the move-in report, and the above unauthorized building area was constructed on April 12, 197, where the household members move to a group without permission, the moving-in report was made on January 1, 1989, and the moving-in population increased since the moving-in population was made on January 1, 199. The above area was built as building materials for building 3 through 5 square meters constructed without columns. However, the plaintiff was obligated to establish the above move-in report to the head of the Dong for the purpose of removing the above area from 00 to 100 without permission, and the plaintiff was obligated to use the above residential facilities within 10 days after the move-in report to the head of the Dong and to manage the above area's residential facilities for the purpose of 10 days.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

(1) The purpose of the Resident Registration Act is to promote the convenience of residents' living and to properly process administrative affairs by clearly ascertaining the movement of population, such as the residential relationship of residents by filing for the registration of residents with the competent Si/Gun/autonomous Gu residents (Article 1). Article 6(1) of the Resident Registration Act provides that a person who has an address or residence within his/her jurisdiction for the purpose of residing for 30 days or more may not duplicate file for a report on resident registration (Article 10(2) of the Act). If a move-in report is made according to the change of residence of residents, the person shall be deemed to have filed a move-in report and a moving-in report with the competent local government under the Military Service Act, the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, the National Basic Living Security Act, the Medical Insurance Act, and the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and the Act on the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that the place of resident registration shall be his/her address in public law, unless otherwise provided for in other Acts, and the purpose of the Resident Registration Act is to ensure the efficient development of local governments.

In full view of the above provisions, "to have a domicile or residence within his jurisdiction for the purpose of residing for not less than 30 days, which is the requirement of a person subject to resident registration under Article 6 (1) of the Resident Registration Act, means a case where the person subject to resident registration has a domicile in a practical sense consistent with the legislative purpose, legal effect of the resident registration and the ideology of local autonomy as seen earlier, and the administrative agency in charge of resident registration may reject the registration in special circumstances where the person subject to resident registration fails to meet such substantial requirements.

(2) However, according to the records, since the plaintiff's relocation report was made, it is difficult for the plaintiff to move the above area to a non-permanent area B which was located in the Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of January 1, 1989 and the redevelopment of the apartment house was made, and as a result, it was difficult for the plaintiff to move into the city of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of 1989 with the moving of 20 households as of May 1, 200. They occupied the land owned by others without permission, and it was hard for the plaintiff to move the above area to a non-permanent area within the residential environment of Yeongdeungpo-gu of Seoul to the extent that it was not possible for the plaintiff to move the area to a non-permanent area of the above area to a non-permanent area of 10th of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of 199, and it was difficult for the plaintiff to know that there was no legitimate reason to remove the residents' resident registration and its neighboring residential order of Ku 97.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment that the instant disposition was unlawful solely on the grounds as seen earlier. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements of a person eligible for resident registration, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

July 9, 2002

Justices Lee Yong-woo

Justices Seo Sung-sung

Justices Zwon

Justices Park Jae-sik