[1] Criteria for determining the validity of resident registration, which is a requisite for setting up a lease under the Housing Lease Protection Act

[2] In the case of a multi-family detached house, whether the moving-in report can be the effective publication method of the moving-in report in addition to the lot number in order to satisfy the requirements for opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act (negative), and whether the lessee can be the effective publication method of the moving-in report in case where the moving-in report was filed

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which provides as the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a house, shall be deemed to have been established by a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of a lease for the safety of transaction. Thus, whether a lease has the validity of a public announcement of a resident registration shall be determined depending on whether it can be recognized that the lessee is registered as a person who has an address or residence in the pertinent lease building due to the resident registration

[2] In the case of multi-households, as long as it is not reasonable to regard them as multi-family housing under the Building Act or the Housing Construction Promotion Act, it is sufficient to enter only the lot number in the case of tenants who leased part or all of the above building and make a move-in report under Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act, and further, it cannot be deemed that there is an obligation or need to enter into the number of houses separately for the convenience of residents of the above building. In fact, as in the case of detached houses, it should be borne by interested parties who intend to establish security rights, etc. as in the case of the above building. Thus, as long as the lessee has made a move-in report with the lot number of the above building, it is valid as a method of public announcement of lease because it can be recognized that the above lessee is registered as the person who has the address or residence in the above building, and even if the lessee moved to another part of the previous building that

[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) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da13176 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 64) Supreme Court Decision 95Da46104 delivered on March 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1244 delivered on April 12, 1996) (Gong196Sang, 1524 delivered on July 11, 1997) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da1024 delivered on April 36, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2489) / [360 delivered on April 16, 199, 197

Mutual Savings and Finance Company in a limited partnership

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na5878 delivered on August 29, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on December 191, 191, the court below completed the moving-in report to the Dong office of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) on the following grounds: the defendant was issued a voluntary decision to commence the auction procedure after entering the auction procedure on the 28th of the same month after having received a voluntary auction registration for the housing of this case from the non-party 1, who is the former owner of the housing of this case, for the multi-household 3rd of the housing of this case, and after moving the housing of this case into the Dong office of this case 35,00,000 won on December 10, 1991; the plaintiff could not be seen as having obtained the moving-in report to the non-party 1, who was the former owner of the housing of this case on the 3rd of the housing of this case on the 1991, and the defendant could not have acquired the housing of this case under the name of the non-party 1, who acquired the housing of this case as the non-party 2.9.

2. However, since the resident registration of the so-called multi-household as a requirement for opposing power along with the delivery of a house under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act is established by the method of public announcement that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of the lease for transaction safety, the issue of which resident registration is effective shall be determined by social norms as to which the lessee can be recognized as a person who has the domicile or residence of the above building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da13176, Nov. 22, 1994; 95Da5474, Apr. 12, 1996). Since the so-called multi-household apartment house has no ground to regard it as an apartment house under the Building Act or the Housing Construction Promotion Act, it is sufficient for the tenant to enter the above part in the case of a multi-household building by leasing part or whole of the above building to a third party, and as long as the tenant is not required to enter the above part as one of the residential building's residential convenience or common interests.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant moved into a multi-family house from the non-party 1 on or around December 191, and completed a move-in report after completing a move-in report, and continues to reside in the house in this case, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's resident registration as a requirement for opposing power against the right to lease of the defendant is determined as of December 10, 191, regardless of the time when the defendant moved from ( Address 1 omitted) to ( Address 2 omitted) part of the house in this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's moving-in report was completed on December 10, 1991 with "Ye-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted)" and the effective disclosure method for the above sub-story (Ga) cannot be deemed to have been obtained, and that the resident registration should be determined on the basis of the above moving-in date as the requirement for opposing power of the lease of this case, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the housing lease and opposing power, which affected the conclusion

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 by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)