The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the housing of this case was originally owned by the non-party, who was the non-party, and was in possession of the non-party and moved in the first floor from the above non-party to the moving-in report, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future with respect to the housing of this case in order to secure the defendant's obligation under the partnership agreement. After that, the Industrial Bank of Korea, which was the right to collateral security, went through the voluntary auction procedure for the housing of this case, succeeded to the status of the non-party under the above lease agreement as the transferee of the housing of this case. Since the housing of this case is no longer possible to allow the plaintiff to use and benefit from the housing of this case, the above lease relationship was terminated, and therefore, the defendant was not obligated to return the above deposit to the plaintiff. Thus, the court below decided that the non-party was not obligated to return the housing of this case under the above lease agreement of this case, but the above non-party notified that the contract will be cancelled within a certain period of time, and that the period had not elapsed.

Article 3(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the assignee of a leased house (including any other person who succeeds to the right to lease) shall be deemed to succeed to the status of the lessor. The term "leased status" refers to the status of the lessor under the lease contract as the subject of the right and duty vested in the lessor. The term "Succession" means that the status of the lessor under the lease contract existing between the former lessor and the lessee is transferred to the assignee, while the former lessor leaves the lease contract relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu114, Mar. 10, 1987; 86Meu114, Mar. 10, 1987). Thus, the cases where the transferee of a leased house, which is deemed to succeed to the status of the lessor, should be the case where the transferee of the leased house is ultimately and finally transferred the right to lease the house or the right accompanying it, and thus, the so-called transfer of the ownership of the leased house to the mortgagee, barring special circumstances, does not constitute the mortgagee.

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant is merely a mortgagee who has completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant house for the bond security and cannot be deemed as a transferee of the leased house. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the return of the lease deposit on the premise that the defendant is the transferee of the leased house cannot be accepted

The judgment of the court below on the premise that the Defendant, as a mortgagee of the instant house, constitutes the assignee of the leased house as stipulated in Article 3 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the above legal principles. However, the court below is just in its conclusion to reject the Plaintiff’s claim, and such erroneous determination does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The issue eventually leads to the absence of reason.

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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)