전세금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff leased an F No. 70 million won, part of the D Building E located in Young-gu, Young-gu, G from the Defendant on May 24, 2017, and during the lease period from July 14, 2017 to July 13, 2019.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Meanwhile, on April 4, 2019, the Defendant transferred the ownership of the said subparagraph to G farming association corporations (hereinafter “G”) on April 4, 2019 during the said lease term.
[A evidence No. 1 and No. 1] The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the payment of the deposit on the ground of the termination of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant asserted that the Defendant exempted the obligation to return the deposit by transferring the said title to G.
2. Determination - Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that whether to exempt a lease deposit or not shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of the lessor. Thus, it shall be deemed that legal obligatory succession provisions apply to the transfer of a rental house. As such, in the event that a rental house is transferred, the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the lease contract of the lessor in combination with the ownership of the house, the transferee is discharged from the obligation to return the lease deposit, and the transferor is exempted from the obligation to return the lease deposit to the lessee by withdrawing from the lease relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523, Jan. 17, 2013). The Plaintiff is exempted from the obligation to return the lease deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523, Jul. 14, 2017).
On the other hand, if the plaintiff proves that he/she has raised an objection within the extended period from the date when he/she became aware of the above transfer, he/she may restrain the defendant from immunity.