[건물명도][공1994.2.1.(961),343]
Where a lessee of a leased house has transferred his/her resident registration after the transferee becomes liable for the refund of the lease deposit;
If a lessee of a house transfers the ownership of a rental house to a third party after having an opposing power, the transferee succeeds to the status of the lessor, and thus, the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit also is also transferred to the transferee, and as such, the obligation to return the lease deposit is not extinguished due to the transferee’s transfer of the lease deposit to another place after the transferee became liable for the repayment of the lease deposit.
Article 3 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na12090 delivered on June 4, 1993
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The court below recognized the fact that Nonparty 1 entered into the instant lease agreement with the defendant on behalf of Nonparty 2, and in light of the records, although the court below's reasoning is somewhat insufficient, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable.
The argument of the theory on this point is ultimately inconsistent with the evidence preparation and fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court below, and it is not acceptable to accept it.
In addition, in cases where a lessee of a house transfers the ownership of a rental house to a third party after having an opposing power, the transferee succeeds to the status of the lessor (Article 3(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act), and thus, the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit also is also transferred to the transferee. As such, since the lessee transferred his resident registration to another place after the transferee became liable for the refund of the lease deposit, the obligation to return the lease deposit already occurred is not extinguished. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same effect is correct
As pointed out in the judgment of the court below, there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing. All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)