A. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff’s real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant Cooperative on May 6, 2015, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 10 as to the claim for ownership transfer registration.

(2) According to the above facts, the Defendant Union appears to have purchased the instant building at KRW 336 million in price. (2) According to the purport of the purport of the claim on May 6, 2015, the term “..........” stated in the purport of the claim on December 2, 2015 appears to have been written in writing to the Plaintiff as “ May 6, 2015.”

Plaintiff

Even based on the assertion, the sales contract was concluded on May 6, 2015, but only the down payment stated in the contract was corrected on December 2, 2015.

There is a duty to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale.

B. Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the assignee of a rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “rental house”) shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of a lessor, which is the object of a lease that meets the requirements for counterclaim as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the said Act (hereinafter “rental house”). As such, it should be deemed that the provisions on bound succession under the Housing Lease Protection Act apply to the transfer of a rental house. As such, the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the lease contract in combination with the ownership of a house, and as a result, the transferee is exempted 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da49523, Jan. 17, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2018Da201610, Jun. 19, 2018).