1. Where a lessee has opposing power pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the former Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12043, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), the transferee of the leased house pursuant to paragraph (3) of the same Article shall be deemed to succeed to the status of the lessor.

As a result, the transferee of the leased house 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.

However, even a lessee who may oppose the assignee of a leased house may be exempted from the restraint of the succeeded lease relationship if he/she does not want to succeed to the lease relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da37646, Jul. 12, 1996). Therefore, the lessee of the leased house may terminate the lease contract by agreement with the lessor before the lease term expires and receive a refund of the lease deposit from the lessor. In such a case, the transferee of the leased house does not succeed to the status of the lessor.

Meanwhile, where a pledge of a right has been established on a claim against a third party obligor as security for an obligation to another person, the pledger cannot extinguish the right under the pledge without the consent of the pledgee, or cannot make any change detrimental to the rights of the pledgee.

(Article 352 of the Civil Code) The purpose of this article is to protect the exclusive control power of the pledgee over the exchange value of the claim which is the object of the pledge.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da35375 delivered on November 11, 1997, etc.). Therefore, in a case where the pledger notifies the garnishee of the fact of the establishment of the right of pledge or the third obligor consents thereto, even if the third obligor reimburses the obligation which is the object of the right of pledge without the pledgee’s consent, it cannot be set up against the pledgee. The pledgee is still entitled to the third obligor’s direct performance pursuant to Article 353(2) of the Civil Act.

Supreme Court on April 29, 2016