[1] Where a corporate company rents a house and allows its employees to reside after the completion of resident registration, whether the company satisfies the requirements for resident registration under the Housing Lease Protection Act (affirmative)

[2] Whether a corporation is excluded from the object of protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act (negative)

[1] In a case where a corporate body, for the welfare of its employees, leases a house for the welfare of its employees and allows its employees to reside after the completion of resident registration, the occupation of its employees is deemed possession as the lessee’s assistant in possession or direct occupant permitted by the company to occupy and use the house. Thus, if the resident registration of its assistant in possession or direct occupant is legitimate, the lessee is the company which is the lessee.

requirements of resident registration under law are satisfied.

[2] The purpose of Article 1 of the Housing Lease Protection Act stipulating the purpose of excluding a corporation from the object of protection under the Act cannot be determined to be the object of protection under the Act. Furthermore, in the case where a corporation is a tenant in the above Act, there is no reasonable ground to interpret that the natural person is excluded from the object of protection, unlike the case where the natural person is a tenant. In addition, if the company leases a house from the perspective of welfare for its employees and provides it to its employees, the case where the company is excluded from the object of protection under the circumstances where the company is merely a legal person, it is not simply a lessee, which has a negative impact on the company's welfare policy, then the damage must return to the ordinary people who are economically weak, and this is contrary to the purpose of the enactment of the above Act, and thus, it is also necessary to include a corporation

Articles 1 and 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Supreme Court Order 94Ma2134 dated June 5, 1995 (195Ha, 2490) Supreme Court Order 95Da3038 dated January 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 745)

Two-won Mutual Aid Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dom General Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Hansung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 94Na113323 delivered on April 26, 1995

1. The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff ordering payment of money is revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 63 million won with 5% interest per annum from October 14, 1994 to January 9, 1996, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or take full account of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-1, three evidence 5-1, four evidence 5-1, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 6, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1, evidence 2-2, evidence 1, evidence 8-2, evidence 8-2, evidence 8-2, evidence 3-3, evidence 1-3, evidence 4-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 9-3, evidence 1-2, evidence 5-4, evidence 5-2, evidence 9-1, evidence 7-2, evidence 1-2, evidence 3-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 9-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 1-7, evidence 5-2, evidence 3-2, evidence 5-4, and evidence 9-1, evidence 7-2

A. On October 27, 1991, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the non-party Kim Jong-Un and 464 new apartments 4, 313, Dong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) with the deposit deposit of KRW 63,00,000, and the lease term of October 27, 1993, and paid the deposit money.

B. From May 8, 192, the apartment of this case, the non-party Dara, Japan, who was a member of technical consultation of the plaintiff company, moved into the apartment of this case as of May 8, 1992, and registered as the result of the alteration column of the residence in the foreigner registration slip as of May 8, 1992, the apartment of this case was moved into the apartment of this case, and the non-party Dora was the employee of the plaintiff company, who was the employee of the plaintiff company, moved into Japan on May 15, 1993, and completed the move-in report on the resident registration as of December 15, 1993.

C. On August 2, 1992, the above Kim Jong-Un sold the apartment of this case to the non-party Dosan, and the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the same terms and conditions as the previous lease agreement on September 1, 19 of the same year, and the notary public was certified by the above contract at the Gangnam-dong Law Office on September 3 of the same year.

D. On April 20, 1992, Defendant (the defendant life insurance company before the alteration was registered with the trade name as of January 4, 1993) lent KRW 125,000,00 to Jinjin Industrial Co., Ltd. on April 20, 1992, and registered the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate owned by the non-party No. 125,000,000 for the purpose of securing the above loan claims. After that, upon the request of the above Jinjin Industrial Co., Ltd. to replace the apartment owned by the non-party No. 1, the above real estate owned by the non-party No. 1 and the above Jinjin Industrial Co., Ltd. owned by the non-party No. 501, 406, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was completed with respect to the apartment of this case as of September 15, 1992.

E. On April 19, 1993, the defendant and the non-party Jinjin Industrial Co., Ltd. decided to pay interest of 90,000,000 won per annum 12% of the above loans, but the repayment date is extended by 12% per annum. However, since the repayment date is not made with respect to the principal and interest on the extended repayment date, the defendant applied for a voluntary auction as of April 21, 1994, the decision to commence the auction on April 22, 1994 and the registration of the above application for auction was completed as of April 25, 1994 by the above court No. 29202 of the above court.

F. During the above auction procedure on July 20, 1994, the Plaintiff reported the above lease deposit claim to the above court and demanded the distribution of the above lease deposit. Nonparty 1 was awarded a successful bid for the apartment of this case at KRW 100,120,00 on August 22, 1994, and on October 14 of the same year, the date of distribution, the remainder after deducting KRW 2,908,190 from the successful bid price of the apartment of this case, the remaining amount of KRW 97,211,810 from the successful bid price of the apartment of this case was paid to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee for the apartment of this case, was distributed the above amount.

2. Determination on the assertion by the plaintiff and the defendant

According to the above facts, the plaintiff, as a tenant of the apartment of this case, obtained a certificate of a deed signed by a private person on September 3, 1992 on the lease agreement, and had his employees complete a foreigner registration or resident registration and move into the apartment of this case, and at least he met all the requisite to set up against the plaintiff under Article 3-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act on September 3, 1992, and has the right to preferential payment under Article 3-2 of the same Act. Thus, the registration of the establishment of the defendant's neighboring mortgage established as of September 15, 1992 is subordinate in relation to the plaintiff, and therefore, the amount that the defendant received by the first priority holder prior to the plaintiff is unjust enrichment without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the deposit deposit amount of 63 million won and interest thereon to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's assertion is improper since the plaintiff cannot be registered as a corporation and the employee's resident registration alone cannot be viewed as satisfying the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

The reason why the Housing Lease Protection Act provides as one of the requirements for setting up against a third party is that the third party can clearly know who is residing in the house by means of the resident registration. Second, if a dispute arises between the third party such as the transferee of the house and the lessee over the period when the lessee begins to reside in the house, the third party is required to clarify the date of the resident registration. However, in reality, the third party is not an important issue, but an important issue is that the third party is leases and resides in the house concerned, and there is no special interest. However, the fact that the tenant is succeeded to the status of the lessor, and the existence of the lease is not confirmed only through the tenant's resident registration. Therefore, it is reasonable to acknowledge the opposing power of the tenant, which is the owner of the house under the Housing Lease Protection Act, for the reason that the third party has occupied or occupied the tenant's spouse or his child, and the third party has not obtained the tenant's resident registration directly from the tenant, the third party's agent is not allowed to do so.

In addition, since the Housing Lease Protection Act aims to protect the residential life of ordinary people, the corporation is not included in the object of protection, and therefore, if the corporation is a tenant, the opposing power or preferential payment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act cannot be granted even if the resident registration of its employee has been made. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is unjust.

However, Article 1 of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to ensure the stability of the people's residential life by prescribing special cases concerning the lease of a residential building," while the purpose of the enactment is to exclude a corporation from the object of protection under the above Act, it cannot be concluded that the above provision is the object of protection under the above Act. Furthermore, if a corporation is a lessee in anywhere of the above Act, there is no reasonable ground to interpret that the natural person is excluded from the object of protection under the above Act, unlike the case where the natural person is a lessee, and if the company leases a house for the welfare of its employees and provides it to its employees, the case where the company is excluded from the object of protection under the above Act on the ground that it is merely a juristic person, in reality, has a negative impact on the company's welfare policy, and eventually, the damage is to return to the ordinary people who are economically weak, and this is also inconsistent with the purpose of the enactment of the above Act to guarantee the stability of the residential life of ordinary people, and thus,

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that a corporation is also included in the object of protection of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the defendant's argument is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 63,00,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from October 14, 1994 to January 9, 1996, which is the date of the decision of the court of the first instance, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the court below shall order the defendant to pay the above amount of money recognized, and the remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who is the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition with a declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Park Jong-dong (Presiding Judge)