[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] Whether the opposing power of a housing lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act is lost in cases where resident registration is revoked ex officio (affirmative)

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Articles 1, 17-2 and 17-3 of the Resident Registration Act, Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da20957 decided Oct. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2701) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da43468 decided Jan. 23, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 609) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37012 decided Sept. 29, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2223), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da20957 decided Oct. 11, 202 (Gong2002Ha, 2701)

Ma-young

Handiculs

Seoul District Court Decision 2002Na48251, 48268 delivered on April 23, 2003

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

In light of the purport of Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act giving strong opposing power to the housing lessee in real rights registered with the requirements for delivery and resident registration in accordance with the Housing Lease Protection Act, the requirements for opposing power, such as delivery and resident registration, should continue to exist for the purpose of maintaining the opposing power, not only if they meet the requirements for the acquisition of opposing power, but also for the purpose of maintaining the opposing power. In principle, the cancellation of resident registration by the head of a Si/Gun/Gu without the intention of the housing lessee pursuant to the Resident Registration Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall lose its opposing power. However, the ex officio cancellation system under the Resident Registration Act is aimed at promoting the convenience of the living of the housing and promoting the proper disposal of administrative affairs by clearly understanding the movement of population such as residential relations, and the purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to clearly recognize the existence of the lease in order to ensure the safety of transaction, and therefore, it is reasonable to say that the ex officio cancellation is not re-registration to the 20th lessee and to maintain the opposing power after the cancellation under the Resident Registration Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant, who is the lessee of the house of this case, completed the move-in report on the house of this case on April 8, 1996, and the above move-in report was cancelled on February 26, 1999 and re-registered on May 31, 200 pursuant to Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act. Thus, the court below held that the plaintiff who was awarded the contract of this case on April 3, 2001 and paid the successful bid price on May 10 of the same year succeeded to the status of Kim Jong-hun, a lessor of the house of this case on May 10 of the same year, as the plaintiff could not oppose the defendant. The above decision of the court below is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the opposing power of the rental house of this case.

The ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)