[Dissenting Opinion by Justice Shin Young-chul, Justice Lee In-bok, Justice Lee In-bok, Justice Lee Sang-hoon, Justice Park Poe-young, and Justice Kim Shin] Where a lessee’s obligee’s claim for return of a lease deposit was seized or provisionally seized before the transfer of lease relationship following the transfer of a rental house, notwithstanding the alteration of rights under substantive law based on Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the status of the enforcement obligee, execution obligor, and the third party obligor’s obligor’s execution law is not changed because of the prohibition of disposal inherent in the seizure or provisional seizure and the effect of preservation of status inherent in the seizure or provisional seizure. Our Civil Execution Act does not know the concept of succession of the third party’s status by the party’s disposal in the enforcement of monetary claim, and only allows the enforcement obligee to achieve the purpose of execution initially commenced or preserved without the party’s disposal. Although the succession of lessor’s status following the transfer of a rental house is obviously a legal succession based on Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the Majority Opinion’s position based on the party’s disposal of a rental house is unreasonable.

1. Legal principles concerning the effect of succession to a lessor's status under the Housing Lease Protection Act on the provisional seizure of a deposit for lease;

Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the assignee of a rental house (hereinafter “rental house”) which is the object of a lease that meets the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be deemed to succeed to the status of a lessor. As such, it shall be deemed that the provisions of legal succession are applicable to the transfer of a rental house. As such, if a rental house is transferred, the transferee succeeds to the entire rights and obligations under the lease contract of a lessor 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 a lessee by withdrawing from the lease relationship (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu114, Mar. 10, 1987; 2003Da58010, Apr. 16, 2004, etc.).

Furthermore, the status of the third obligor ordered prohibition of the payment of the obligation to return the lease deposit on the premise that the lessee is the lessor who bears the obligation to return the lease deposit, cannot be separated from the status of the lessor. Thus, if the status of the third obligor is transferred to the transferee of the leased house in the entirety, the status of the third obligor is transferred along with the status of the lessor.

Meanwhile, the reason for recognizing the assignee's exemption from the obligation to return the deposit for lease by the transferee of a rental house under the Housing Lease Protection Act is that most of the lessor's obligations concerning a rental house can be performed if the owner of the house is the only one, and that the lessee can obtain the preferential repayment of the deposit from the proceeds of sale of the rental house if the lessee satisfies the requirements for counterclaim under the same Act. If the transferee fails to succeed to the status of the third obligor of provisional seizure of claims even though the rental house was transferred, the provisional seizure obligee suffers significant disadvantage that the owner loses the right

Considering these circumstances, if a rental house is transferred under the condition that a lessee’s claim for the return of a lease deposit is provisionally seized, the transferee succeeds to the status of the third party obligor for the provisional seizure against the claim, and the provisional seizure authority also can assert the effect of the provisional seizure against the transferee, not the transferor of the

2. Determination as to the instant case

A. (1) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the record, ① on April 7, 2002, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Lessee”) leased the lease deposit of KRW 202,00,000 from the non-party 2 to the non-party 3,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

(2) On the ground that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the collection of the instant loan against the Defendant as the creditor of the collection of the instant loan against the lessee, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the decision on provisional seizure of the said claim only takes effect between the Plaintiff, the debtor, and Nonparty 4, the third debtor, and that it does not take effect against the Defendant who acquired the instant rental house from Nonparty 4.

B. However, such determination by the lower court is not correct.

In light of the above legal principles, the provisional seizure against claims of this case shall be effective against the defendant who succeeded to the whole status of the lessor as the transferee of the rental house of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim on a different ground is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of provisional seizure of claims where a lessee’s claim for return of deposit was provisionally seized after a lessee’s claim for return of deposit was provisionally seized. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Except as otherwise provided by the Dissenting Opinion by Justice Shin Young-chul, Justice Lee In-bok, Justice Lee Sang-hoon, Justice Park Poe-young, and Justice Kim Shin, the Majority Opinion concurring with the Majority by Justice Min Il-young, Justice Park Poe-dae, and Justice Kim Yong-deok

4. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Shin Young-chul, Justice Lee In-bok, Justice Lee Sang-hoon, Justice Park Poe-young, and Justice Kim Shin

A. The Majority Opinion argues that if a lessee transfers a rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act while a lessee’s lease deposit claim is provisionally seized, the transferee succeeds to the status of the third obligor of provisional seizure of the claim.

However, such a view of the Majority Opinion not only contravenes the general principles of the Civil Execution Act concerning the enforcement of monetary claims, but also leads to problems that are unreasonable or difficult to resolve even in the actual application, and ③ above all, it is difficult to agree with the Majority Opinion, which is derived from an excessively limited interest in the Housing Lease Protection Act.

B. First, the Majority Opinion appears to be confused without distinguishing the substantive legal issues of the transfer of lease relationship following the transfer of rental housing and the impact of the said transfer on the lessee’s creditor’s creditor’s claims for return of lease deposit on seizure or provisional seizure.

As pointed out in the majority opinion, Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the assignee of a rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be deemed to succeed to the status of a lessor. Thus, in the event that such rental house is transferred, the transferee of a rental house succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the substantive law of a lessor including the obligation to return the lease deposit, and the transferor withdraws from the lease relationship. However, in a case where a lessee’s claim to return the lease deposit is seized or provisionally seized upon the lessee’s application before the transfer of the lease relationship, notwithstanding the alteration of rights under the substantive law as seen above, the status of the execution obligee, the execution obligor, and the third obligor, who are the party concerned, is not changed under the Civil Execution Act because of the prohibition of disposal inherent in the seizure or provisional seizure and the effect of preserving the current status, regardless of the alteration of rights inherent in the seizure or provisional seizure. Our Civil Execution Act does not know the concept of succession to the status of a third obligor by the party’s disposal in the execution of monetary claim, and only can the execution obligee

Although the succession of a lessor's status following the transfer of a rental house constitutes a legal succession based on Article 3 (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, this is clearly based on the intention of the parties to a contract of transfer of a rental house, and the majority opinion, as a result of a party's disposition, regards that the validity of a provisional seizure or seizure order issued by a court of execution may vary with the person who has been subject to a provisional seizure or seizure order issued by a court of execution due to the party's disposition, and there is no ground to view that our Civil Execution Act is acceptable. In addition, in the case of death or extinction of a third party debtor, the effect of seizure or provisional seizure shall extend to the heir, the surviving company after the merger, or the newly incorporated company after the merger. However, in the case of the above death or merger, it is necessary to maintain the effect of preserving the current status of seizure or provisional seizure on the premise that the third party debtor's legal personality is succeeded. Thus, in the case of the transfer of a rental house, such as this case, the issue of succession of legal personality, such as death or merger, does not arise.

C. When applying the Majority Opinion as a legal doctrine, it is difficult to avoid various problems that are difficult to solve with unfair consequences.

As seen earlier, our Civil Execution Act does not know the concept of the succession to the status of the garnishee by the party’s disposal act in the execution of monetary claims, and thus, at all, does not have any procedure to incorporate the leased house into the system under the Civil Execution Act when the transfer of the leased house occurred. Therefore, the transferee of the leased house is not informed by the execution court of the existence and content of the seizure or provisional seizure, and the execution court’s own notification of the transfer of the leased house cannot be known, and even if the execution creditor requests the execution court to inform the transferee of the leased house of the fact of the transfer, there is no procedural basis to respond thereto.

Ultimately, according to the majority opinion, any person who intends to acquire a rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act shall investigate and grasp the existence and content of seizure or provisional seizure of claims for the return of lease deposit under his/her own responsibility and burden. However, in light of the reality of frequent transfer of rental housing and the concern that the transferor of the previous lessor may not conclude a sales contract, etc., it is sufficiently anticipated that the imposition of the duty to investigate the transferee may lead to an increase in the transaction cost. Furthermore, in the case of acquisition of a house by auction, it is difficult to expect that the purchaser is notified of the existence or content of seizure or provisional seizure from the previous owner. In addition, in light of the reality that most of the real estate brokers for the sale of a house are involved, there is a possibility that disputes between the broker and the broker over the duty to investigate seizure or provisional seizure or the location and scope of responsibility.

In addition, the above problem becomes more serious in cases where several seizure or provisional seizure takes place where a pre-transfer of a rental house has been made and between the time of the transfer and the time of the transfer, and where several seizure or provisional seizure takes place between the garnishee and the final owner of a rental house with the deposit for execution. In such cases, if the last owner of a rental house intends to escape the obligation to refund the deposit for lease by the deposit for execution, he/she shall track all the owners of the rental house from the time of the first residence of the lessee, and ascertain whether there was seizure or provisional seizure taking the third obligor into account the owner as the third obligor, and not so, he/she cannot avoid any omission in the statement about the partial execution creditor in the deposit. If there is no such omission, the execution court, which is obliged to distribute the deposit, shall be excluded from the distribution procedure, and ultimately, it is highly likely to lead to the public interest of

In addition, according to the majority opinion, when a court of execution issues a provisional seizure order on the claim for the return of lease deposit to a provisional seizure, it shall not be pointed out that the execution creditor bears the burden to examine the transfer of the rental house and the substantive legal relations, which is the validity of the provisional seizure order, as alleged by the execution creditor, beyond confirming the formal identity of the third debtor.

Meanwhile, if a third party obligor’s status under the Civil Procedure Act is deemed to be naturally succeeded to by law due to the transfer of a rental house as stated in the Majority Opinion, it is consistent with the logic that the status of a party is naturally succeeded to. That is, in cases where a lessor, who filed a lawsuit claiming the return of a lease deposit against a lessor, transfers a rental house to a third party while the lawsuit is in progress, the lessor should be deemed to have transferred the leased house to the assignee as a party under the Civil Procedure Act, beyond simply transferring the object of a lease deposit to the assignee, which is a substantive legal relationship. In such cases, it would result in the interruption of legal proceedings and the succession of a party’s status under Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the merger of a juristic person, by analogy of the provisions of Articles 81 and 82 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the interruption of legal proceedings and the succession of a rental house under the Civil Procedure Act concerning the merger of a juristic person. Moreover, the Majority Opinion’s conclusion that the transfer of a rental house should be excluded from the judgment of the parties to the lawsuit without having become final and conclusive.

D. Ultimately, the Majority Opinion permits the procedural stability by expanding the legal principles of precedents on the substantive legal relations that the obligation to return the lease deposit is succeeded to the transferee with the exemption from liability, without limitation, in cases where a rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act is transferred, and it is difficult to find the necessity or legitimacy of such interpretation.

However, as mentioned earlier, our Civil Execution Act only protects the interests of enforcement creditors through the effect of prohibition of disposal, and it does not mean that a lessee of a rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act is a creditor of a rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act, and there is no reason to grant any other procedural preference to the lessee of the rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act.

In other words, if the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit remains formally in the status of a third-party obligor when the lessor transferred the leased house after receiving an order of seizure or provisional seizure as to the claim to return the lease deposit, the execution obligee would not suffer any disadvantage. However, this is only limited to an uncertain future monetary claims or conditional monetary claims, and there is no special problem that is limited to the creditors who attempted compulsory execution as to the claim to return the lease deposit. Rather, the creditors who attempted to enforce compulsory execution as to the claim to return the lease deposit still have the opportunity to commence the new execution procedure against the transferee of the lease deposit, which is more favorable than the creditors who attempted to enforce compulsory execution as to other monetary claims.

The Housing Lease Protection Act is to protect a lessee and is not to protect a lessee’s creditor. The Majority Opinion justifys granting preferential treatment to a creditor who has attached a claim for the return of a lease deposit to a lessee beyond the general principle of the Civil Execution Act on the ground that it is a special law under the Housing Lease Protection Act. However, Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which is the starting point of discussion, is also the legislative purpose of guaranteeing a lessee’s right to continue residence and return of a lease deposit through the due succession to a lessor’s status against a new lessee. However, if the legislative purpose of the protection is not faithfully realized by granting a lessee’s special status as to a lessee as above, it is contrary to the basic principle of the Civil Execution Act, and there is no reason to choose an interpretation that is contrary to the basic principle of the Civil Execution Act and cannot avoid unjust results

E. As seen above, we cannot agree with the majority opinion because there are various problems, and it is reasonable to interpret that the status of the third obligor of the provisional seizure already executed is not succeeded in the case of the transfer of the obligation to return the deposit for lease due to the acquisition of a house, not the comprehensive succession of the status of the parties such as inheritance or merger. The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the legal principle as to Article 3(3) of

Therefore, we express our dissent from the Majority Opinion as above.

5. Concurrence with the Majority Opinion by Justice Min Il-young, Justice Park Poe-dae, and Justice Kim Yong-deok

The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Shin Young-chul, Justice Lee In-bok, Justice Lee Sang-hoon, Justice Park Poe-young, Justice Park Poe-young, and Justice Kim Shin, in case where a lessee’s right to return a lease deposit is provisionally attached and a rental house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act is transferred, the transferee does not succeed to the status of the garnishee, and thus, the provisional attachment does not have the effect on the assignee. Furthermore, as the transferor is exempted from the obligation to return a lease deposit by the transfer of

A. The main argument of the Dissenting Opinion is that only when a third party obligor’s legal personality is extinguished due to death or merger under the Civil Execution Act, the status of the third party obligor can be succeeded to, and the succession to the status of the third party obligor is not recognized as a result of the party’s act of disposal. The Majority Opinion is inconsistent with the basic principles.

However, in the event that the Civil Execution Act ceases to be a third party obligor due to death or merger, it is common to recognize that the third party obligor’s legal status is succeeded to. However, in such a case, it does not recognize the succession of status as limited, nor does it deny that the succession of status is recognized by the special law.

Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act declares that when the ownership of a rental house is transferred, the legal status of the lessor is transferred to the transferee in entirety. In other words, all rights and obligations arising from the lease relationship of the relevant rental house is succeeded to the assignee from the transferor, and the recognition of such legal doctrine is the established position of the Supreme Court precedents. Therefore, the legal relationship of the lease agreement that existed before the transfer of the rental house continues to exist between the transferee and the transferee as it is. Such legal effect is reasonable to view that not only the substantive law but also the law and the enforcement law extends to the parties to the lease. The reasons are as follows.

In general lease, even if a lessor transfers the leased object to another person after the provisional seizure of the claim for return of deposit for lease, the lessee still holds a claim for return of deposit for lease against the lessor, and the lessor bears the obligation to return the deposit for lease against the lessee. Therefore, the obligee of provisional seizure still bears the obligation to return the deposit for lease against the lessor. Therefore, if the leased object is a house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act, the lessee may still claim provisional seizure against the lessor. On the other hand, if the leased object is a house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act, the lessee cannot make a claim for return of deposit for lease against the lessor, and the lessor does not bear the obligation to return the deposit for lease against the lessee, and the transferee bears the obligation of the lessor. Accordingly, as the Dissenting Opinion recognizes, the provisional seizure obligee cannot claim provisional seizure against the lessor. As such, the reason for different treatment is attributable to the comprehensive transfer of legal relations arising from the transfer of the leased object to the assignee, unlike the case of a general lease. If the former garnishee (i.e., the previous garnishee) is exempt from the obligor’s obligation to the attached claim.

Meanwhile, the legal relationship of the lease agreement, which existed before the transfer of the rental house, remains between the transferee and the transferee, and it is not the extinction of the transferor’s legal personality. The transfer of the rental house differs not only from the inheritance or merger in that not only the legal relationship of the rental house but also all other legal relations are comprehensively transferred in the case of inheritance or merger, but also from that of the overall transfer of the rights and obligations related to the rental house. Therefore, if the legal relationship surrounding the lease of the relevant rental house is considered only to be a legal relationship surrounding the lease of the relevant rental house, there is a legal effect similar to the inheritance or merger. In the case of a merger by split-off as stipulated in Article 530-9(3) of the Commercial Act, the comprehensive transfer of the rights and obligations related to the divided portion takes place without the extinguishment of legal personality in the case of a merger by split-off as stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act. Therefore, if the legal problem surrounding the lease of the relevant rental house is considered only the legal relationship

Furthermore, the comprehensive transfer of such rights and obligations surrounding lease is the legal effect arising from Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and only the intention to transfer the ownership of the rental house is the intention to transfer the ownership of the rental house, not the disposal by the disposal based on the intention of the transferor and the transferee. Even if the transferor and the transferee do not want it, the right and obligations regarding the lease are transferred as a whole.

In short, the general effect of provisional seizure on monetary claims varies because there is a special clause of Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Therefore, whether the existence and effect of the aforementioned provision are denied or not, the majority opinion does not regard it as contrary to the basic theory of the Civil Execution Act.

B. The Dissenting Opinion, like the Majority Opinion, acknowledges the succession of the status of a garnishee as well as the preferential treatment to the provisional seizure right holder, which is not necessary or justifiable.

In ordinary cases, in cases of provisional seizure of monetary claims, it is impossible for a lessor to be exempted from the obligation of provisional seizure by extinguishing the claim that is provisionally seized by the garnishee due to repayment, etc. In addition, as mentioned above, in cases of provisional seizure of claims for return of general lease deposit, a lessor, who is the garnishee, cannot set up against the right of provisional seizure who transfers the house which is the object of the lease. On the other hand, in cases where a lease deposit claim which is the object of the Housing Lease Protection Act has been provisionally seized, a lessor would be exempted from the obligation of return of the lease deposit by transferring the lease deposit. Therefore, in such cases, if a provisional seizure is invalidated without succession to the status of the third obligor, the lessor would lose the effect of the provisional seizure, thereby causing damage to the person having the right of provisional seizure. There is no reason to assume such disadvantage differently from the person having the right of provisional seizure of claims for return of lease deposit which is the object of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the majority opinion is not the person having the right of provisional seizure, which is the object of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

In this regard, the Dissenting Opinion argues that it is appropriate to recognize the succession of the effect of provisional seizure to the assignee of a rental house is in line with the purpose of preserving the current status, which is the original effect of provisional seizure. However, since there is no legal procedure to notify the right to the provisional seizure of the transfer of a rental house between the transferor and the transferee, the right to provisional seizure is required to investigate the transfer of a rental house from time to time and immediately seize the lease deposit to the lessee, and if the transferee returns the lease deposit to the lessee between the transferor and the transferee who did not take such measures, then it is inevitable for the lessee to suffer disadvantages due to the extinction of provisional seizure. It is doubtful how to allow the effect of provisional seizure to be easily transferred according to the intention of the interested parties other than the right to the provisional seizure, which is the original effect of the provisional seizure. In order to achieve the effectiveness of the preservation of the current status of provisional seizure, it is necessary to find ways to prevent

C. The Dissenting Opinion emphasizes that the Housing Lease Protection Act is a law that protects lessees and is not a law that protects the creditors of lessees. There is no theory that the Housing Lease Protection Act was enacted for the protection of the original lessee. However, it is a matter different from how to determine the legal effect following the transfer of rental housing. The issues of this case are the obligations of the transferor, the garnishee of provisional seizure, and the transferee of rental housing, and there is no difference between the protection of the lessee, the debtor of provisional seizure, and the lessee.

Here, I will examine how the problem of the protection of lessee varies depending on whether the status of the transferor, the third debtor of the provisional seizure, should be transferred to the transferee in the case of the transfer of the leased house after the lessee's claim for the return of the lease deposit was provisionally seized.

First, if the status of a third-party obligor is succeeded to the assignee, the transferee should not return the lease deposit to the lessee, and if the provisional attachment right holder acquires the title later, he/she should return it to the transferee.

On the other hand, if the provisional attachment is extinguished and the status of the third party obligor of the provisional attachment is not succeeded to the assignee, it would be what is. In this case, the transferee who succeeds to the obligation to return the lease deposit is liable for the repayment to the lessee, which is not a third party obligor of the provisional attachment, and whether the obligation to return the lease deposit is satisfied to the lessee. If this is acceptable, the transferee cannot respond to the demand for the return of the lease deposit by the lessee even if he knows that the claim to return the lease deposit was provisionally seized, so the lessee would be able to receive the deposit without any restriction, even though he knows that the claim to return the lease deposit was provisionally seized. The purpose of protecting this interest is not to pursue

D. According to the Dissenting Opinion, the Dissenting Opinion argues that, when a court of execution issues an attachment order to transfer a rental house to a provisional attachment after the provisional attachment on the claim for the return of lease deposit and the subsequent provisional attachment, it is unreasonable that the court of execution bears the burden to examine the transfer of rental house.

However, the court of execution should examine the legitimacy of the party's assertion on succession in the execution procedure. Since the change of the owner of a rental house can be easily confirmed only by the certified copy of the register, there is no special difficulty in examining the transfer of a rental house in comparison with other cases of succession. Furthermore, if necessary, it may be possible to examine the commencement of operation by receiving the creditor's application or questioning the transferee of a rental house under the consent.

E. The Dissenting Opinion emphasizes that, according to the Majority Opinion, the transferee of a rental house is highly likely to incur unexpected damages to the assignee of the rental house. In the event of provisional seizure on the claim to return the lease deposit by designating the transferor as the garnishee, the transferee may acquire the house or acquire the ownership by auction.

There is no aspect that we agree with the above point of view. However, this issue is a matter of choice as to who, in the face of a typical conflict of interest arising from the cases where the lessee is concealed the provisional attachment of the claim for the return of the lease deposit and the return of the lease deposit from the transferee, should all bear the risk of the lessee's insolvency, etc., and at the same time, the choice of one side is more consistent with the legal system.

In a case where a lessee has returned a deposit to the lessee after being aware of the fact that the claim for the return of the deposit was provisionally seized, the transferee is also in good faith. However, even if the owner of a rental house is changed under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the person holding the provisional attachment right believed that the execution of the claim for the return of the deposit is secured is also the bona fide good faith. Therefore, there is no inevitable reason to protect the transferee as a matter of course in a case where there is no realistic possibility of repayment due to the insolvency, etc. of the lessee who was abandoned upon the receipt of the deposit for the lease. In this case, the majority opinion stipulates that the status of the lessor is comprehensively transferred to the transferee of the house when the Housing Lease Protection Act is transferred, so long as the transfer of the contractual status under the provisions of the Act takes place, it is difficult to say that the status of the obligor for the return of the deposit for lease included and the status of the third obligor

In the event of a transfer of a rental house, there may be discussions as to whether the legislative attitude of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which made the transferor leave the previous lease relationship completely and only the transferee to become a party to the contract, is appropriate in all cases. However, this is only a legislative matter, and it is beyond the area of interpretation. If a rental house is transferred, the status of the lessor is entirely transferred to the transferee, and the risk of the transferee due to the transfer of the lease deposit is based on the outcome of the application of the aforementioned legal provisions. Since the transferee succeeds to the obligation to refund the lease deposit regardless of his/her own will and bears the risk of the transfer of the lease deposit, it is not unreasonable to examine whether the person to receive the deposit properly is the person to receive the deposit, and to demand it. It is in essence directly related to the legitimacy of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

However, if the assignee pays the lease deposit to the lessee without negligence without knowing the fact that the claim for the return of the lease deposit was provisionally seized, it can be said that the assignee recognizes the effect of the repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim and protects the assignee without fault. However, this is not an issue in this case, and it is no longer mentioned.

We supplement the Majority Opinion above.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)