[1] Whether the Housing Lease Protection Act applies to cases where a lease contract is concluded with a person who is not an owner of a house but has legitimate rental authority (affirmative)

[2] Whether a lessee who leased a house which is the object of sale and purchase from a buyer before the cancellation of a sales contract may oppose the right of lease to the new owner despite the cancellation of a sales contract (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that in a case where the buyer of an apartment unit received a key from the buyer of the apartment unit from the buyer of the apartment unit and let the lessee move into it, and the lessee obtained opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the buyer of the apartment unit failed to acquire the ownership of the house since the contract for sale was cancelled due to other circumstances, the lessee

[1] Lease to which the Housing Lease Protection Act applies cannot be deemed to be limited to cases where a lease contract is concluded between a tenant and a landlord who is the owner of a house, and it also includes cases where a lease contract is concluded with a lessor who is not a housing owner and has the authority to lawfully conclude a lease contract on a house (legal lease right).

[2] The buyer, who is delivered the object of sale due to the performance of a sales contract, can legally lease the object to another person in a position that can use and benefit from the object, and the lessee who leased the house, which is the object of sale, before a sales contract is cancelled, and thereby meets the requirements for setting up against the lessee under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, constitutes a third party whose right is not infringed due to the cancellation of the contract pursuant to the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, can oppose the new owner notwithstanding the cancellation of the contract that is based on the lessor’s right of lease.

[3] The case holding that in a case where the buyer of an apartment can not acquire the ownership of the house because the sales contract was cancelled because the buyer failed to perform his/her duty required to move into the apartment under the Housing Lease Protection Act after the buyer received the key from the buyer of the apartment and let the lessee move into it, and the lessee has the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the lessee can oppose the buyer as a right of lease

[1] Article 3 (1) and (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Articles 548 (1) and 568 of the Civil Act, Article 3 (1) and (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [3] Articles 548 (1) and 568 of the Civil Act, Article 3 (1) and (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da22283 delivered on October 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 373) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 71Da309, 310 delivered on March 31, 197 (Gong19-1, 300) Supreme Court Decision 96Da17653 delivered on August 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 278), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da12717 delivered on August 22, 2003 (Gong203Ha, 1921)

Cheongam Project Co., Ltd. (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Kang Han-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm continental, Attorneys Park Jae-on et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na89277, 89284 decided May 10, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A lease to which the Housing Lease Protection Act applies cannot be deemed to be limited to cases where a lease contract is concluded between a lessee and a lessor who is the owner of a house. It includes cases where a lease contract is concluded between a lessor who is not a housing owner and a lessor who is the right to lawfully conclude a lease contract on a house (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da22283, Oct. 12, 1995, etc.). A buyer who is delivered the object of sale due to the implementation of a sale contract can lawfully lease the object to another person as a person who is able to use and benefit from the object (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da309, 310, Mar. 31, 197). A lessee who leased a house which is the object of sale before a sale contract is rescinded and completes resident registration, and thus, a lessee who meets the requirements for counterclaim pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act can be deemed to have infringed upon a lessor’s right to lease (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da27207, Mar. 27, 2019, etc.).

2. According to the facts and records established by the court below, the non-party 1 acquired the status of the purchaser of the apartment of this case sold by the plaintiff from the non-party 2 on February 18, 2004, and leased the apartment of this case to the defendant on the same day. When taking over the status of the purchaser of the apartment of this case from the non-party 2, the non-party 1 took over the loan obligations received from the bank designated by the plaintiff under the plaintiff's joint and several sureties for the payment of part payments. The non-party 3 did not receive the loan obligations under the contract of this case from the plaintiff's joint and several sureties to move into the apartment of this case. The non-party 1 did not pay the loan or transfer the loan to the loan bank with the security interest of this case to the non-party 1, but the non-party 1 did not normally obtain the key from the management office of the apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case and did not report the fact that the contract of this case's overdue interest was discharged by the plaintiff.

The court below held that the non-party 1 had a legitimate authority to lease the apartment of this case since the non-party 1 fulfilled all the obligation to pay the price under the sales contract for the apartment of this case at the time of the lease of this case from the non-party 1 and was in receipt of only the ownership transfer registration for the apartment of this case from the plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be deemed appropriate in light of Article 587 of the Civil Act, but it is justified in concluding the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that the non-party 1 had a legitimate right to rent the apartment of this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)