임대차보증금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is identical to the statement in the grounds for the claim. The above Defendant’s repayment of KRW 55,00,000, which the Plaintiff sought as the instant lawsuit on November 25, 2020, while the instant lawsuit is pending, has no dispute between the parties, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the said Defendant has no grounds for recognition without examining the remaining points.
2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C
A. The plaintiff's assertion is as shown in the grounds for the claim.
B. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.
2) For joint and several sureties, the extinction of the principal obligation is effective against the surety whenever the cause is not asked.
In other words, the guaranteed obligation shall be extinguished accordingly.
This also applies to joint and several sureties.
3) Where a lessee of a house has transferred a leased house after having an opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations of the lessor’s contract by combining the ownership of the house with the ownership of the house, and as a result, the transferee takes over the obligation to return the deposit with the exemption from liability, and the transferor is exempted from the obligation to return the deposit to the lessee by withdrawing from the lease relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523, Jan. 17, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523, Jan. 17, 2013). However, the Plaintiff is a person who is the “case where the leased house has been transferred after having an opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act.”
5) In other words, the obligation to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff by the Defendant C’s Co-sureties U.S. U.D., which the Defendant C guaranteed, was exempted from liability and extinguished.
6) As the principal debt of Defendant C has ceased to exist, the joint and several debt obligations of Defendant C were also extinguished.
7) Accordingly.