임대차보증금반환
1. Defendant C pays KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.
3...
1. Comprehensively taking into account the following facts: ① Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B and the period from April 16, 2015 to April 15, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); ② entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B as to the instant apartment on November 23, 2006, with a deposit of KRW 100 million and a period from April 16, 2015 to April 15, 2017; ③ continued to exist once the instant lease agreement on April 15, 2019; ④ Defendant B transferred the instant apartment ownership to Defendant C on August 27, 2019 to recognize that the ownership transfer registration was completed on August 29, 209.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the facts and evidence in front of the determination as to the claim against Defendant C, the Defendant C succeeded to the status of the Defendant B as the lessor by taking over the instant apartment, the leased house, while the lease deposit was terminated upon expiration of the term of validity, but the lease deposit was not refunded. As such, the Defendant C is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement.
B. Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the assignee of a rental house (hereinafter “rental house”) which is the object of a lease that meets the requirements for counterclaim as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the said Act shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of a lessor. This ought to be deemed as a legal obligatory succession provision. Therefore, in a case where a rental house is transferred, the transferee succeeds to the entire rights and obligations under the lease contract of a lessor in combination with the ownership of a house.