[2] [1] Whether a tenant who leased a house from a buyer can oppose the seller on the ground that the tenant who leased the house satisfies the requirements for counterclaim under the Housing Lease Protection Act

[2] If a purchaser who was granted the right to lease on a deposit basis from a seller as a condition subsequent to a cancellation of a sales contract, leases a house and satisfies the conditions subsequent to the cancellation of a sales contract between the seller and the buyer, and thus the purchaser loses the right to lease on a deposit basis, the lessee is unable to assert the right to use and benefit from the house in relation to the seller as well as the lessee who entered into the lease contract with a person who is not authorized to enter into the lease contract, and thus, the seller's name cannot be asserted against a claim for the name of the seller. This legal principle applies even if the lessee moves into the house and satisfies the requirements for counterclaim under the Housing Lease Protection Act

(1) On the other hand, the court below concluded the above 3-year Housing Lease Protection Act with the non-party 1's right to use the above 3-year Housing on the non-party 1's land, and concluded the above 3-year Housing Lease Protection Act with the non-party 1's right to use the above 0-year Housing on the non-party 2's land, and decided that the non-party 1's right to use the above 1's loan amount to the non-party 1's 10,000 won on August 27, 193, and that the non-party 2's right to use the above 0-year Housing could not be cancelled on the non-party 3's land without the plaintiff's right to use the above 0-year Housing, and that the non-party 1's right to use the above 0-year Housing was not registered on the non-party 3's land before the above 1's lease contract, and that the plaintiff did not use the above 0-year Housing.

(2) However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, it seems that the plaintiff granted the right to purchase the house of this case to the above non-party 3 as incidental to the sales contract between the plaintiff and the above non-party 3 was a condition of rescission of the above sales contract. As such, in this case where the above non-party 3, who was authorized by the plaintiff to purchase the house of this case as a condition of cancellation, entered into a lease contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 3 with the defendant, and the conditions of cancellation were fulfilled upon the termination of the sales contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 3, thereby the above non-party 3 lost the right to purchase the house of this case, the defendant cannot assert the right to use the house of this case in relation to the plaintiff, as in the relation to the lessee who entered into the lease contract with the non-party 3, and thus the plaintiff cannot assert the right to use the house of this case. This legal principle applies even if the defendant moved into the house of this case and met the requirements for counterclaim under

Nevertheless, even if the sales contract between the plaintiff and the above non-party 3 was rescinded, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's request for surrender of the name of this case and the claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the defendant could oppose the plaintiff by means of obligatory right to lease on a deposit basis. It cannot be said that the plaintiff erred in the agreement to grant the above non-party 3 the right to conclude a lease contract on the housing of this case, thereby misunderstanding the legal principles of opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)