[1] In order to exercise opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, whether the delivery of a house and the resident registration should continue to exist (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the opposing power that a housing lessee has already acquired shall be maintained regardless of the transfer of a resident registration, in case where the resident registration was voluntarily transferred by a third party without the intention of the housing lessee and there is no reason to assume the responsibility to the housing lessee for the erroneous transfer of a resident registration

[1] In light of the purport that Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act grants strong opposing power to a housing lessee in a real right registered with the requirements for delivery of a house and resident registration, the requirements for setting up against the delivery of a house and resident registration in a housing lease without any other method for public notice should continue to exist in order to maintain its opposing power, rather than to satisfy the requirements when acquiring its opposing power.

[2] The case holding that the opposing power that a housing lessee has already acquired shall be maintained regardless of the transfer of a resident registration, in case where the resident registration was voluntarily transferred by a third party without the intention of the housing lessee and there is no reason to assume the responsibility to the housing lessee for the erroneous transfer of a resident registration

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Da1695 decided Feb. 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 524) (Gong1987, 524), Supreme Court Decision 88Da143 decided Jan. 17, 1989 (Gong1989, 295), Supreme Court Decision 97Da43468 decided Jan. 23, 1998 (Gong198, 609)

National Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Attorney Lee Jae-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

00 00 00

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na96700 delivered on May 30, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that part of the building of this case which was owned by the defendant on September 30, 1992 was transferred from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 for the period of 20,00,00 and 36 months since October 30, 192, the above deposit was paid to the non-party 1, and the contract was completed on November 23, 1992 with the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 for the transfer of this case's resident registration at the non-party 2 to the non-party 9-1, the non-party 2, the non-party 9-1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 9-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 9-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 9-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 98.

2. In light of the purport of Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act that grants strong opposing power to a housing lessee in a real right registered with the requirements for the delivery of a house and resident registration, the requirements for setting up against the delivery of a house and resident registration in a housing lease without any other means of public announcement are not sufficient if they meet the requirements for the opposing power at the time of acquiring the opposing power, and continue to exist for the purpose of maintaining the opposing power (Supreme Court Decisions 86Da1695 Decided February 24, 1987; 88Da143 Decided January 17, 1989; 97Da43468 Decided January 23, 1998).

However, even if the requirements for the existence of the opposing power for resident registration as above are met, it is reasonable to interpret that the opposing power that the housing lessee has already acquired is maintained regardless of the transfer of resident registration, as determined by the court below, since it is recognized that there is no reason to impose liability on the housing lessee for the erroneous transfer of resident registration as determined by the court below.

Therefore, although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the opposing power of the housing lessee.

3. 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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)