구상금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport:
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the defendant in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant makes an additional determination as to the argument in the appellate court under paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable to
The summary of this case is that since the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis has expired, and the right to claim the return of the deposit, which is the secured claim, has expired by prescription, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis to his heir, and the plaintiff can exercise the right to claim the cancellation as a creditor against H'
2. Additional determination as to the Defendant’s argument at the appellate court
A. The Defendant’s assertion of the right to lease on a deposit basis has become a right to lease on a deposit basis without setting the duration due to statutory renewal at the time of expiration of the duration. Since the right to lease on a deposit basis still remains valid after the expiration of the duration without both parties’ notification of extinction, the extinctive prescription of the right
B. Determination extinctive prescription runs from the time when the right can be exercised
(Article 166(1) of the Civil Act. As alleged by the Defendant, even if the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case continues to exist in force by statutory renewal, it is only the right to lease on a deposit basis with no fixed duration (Article 312(4) of the Civil Act). Thus, the Defendant was able to extinguish the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case and claim the return of the deposit money at any time
Nevertheless, the Defendant exercised the right to request the return of the deposit money against H from September 18, 1998 to September 18, 2008 when the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis expires, or did not make notification of the extinguishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis.
There is no evidence to acknowledge that there exists a reason to obstruct the defendant's exercise of rights.
Therefore, the defendant's deposit money.