Whether a third party who has recovered ownership due to the cancellation of a contract for a house from a lessor who lost ownership due to the cancellation of a contract for the house is liable for the refund of a lease deposit to a lessee who leased the house before the contract is terminated and satisfies the requirements for counterclaim under the Housing Lease Protection Act (affirmative)

A lessee who meets the requirements for setting up against the lessee under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act by leasing a house before the cancellation of the contract by acquiring ownership and losing ownership due to the cancellation of the contract, and completing the delivery and resident registration of the house, constitutes a third party who is not infringed on the right due to the cancellation of the contract pursuant to the proviso of Article 548 (1) of the Civil Act, and thus, notwithstanding the cancellation of the contract which is based on the lessor's right to lease, he/she may set up against the new owner. In such cases, a third party who has recovered ownership due to the cancellation of the contract shall succeed to the status

Article 548 of the Civil Act, Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 95Da2283 delivered on October 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 373), Supreme Court Decision 95Da32037 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 374), Supreme Court Decision 96Da17653 delivered on August 20, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2788)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Public-service Advocates, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2002Na6216 delivered on January 24, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the misapprehension of the legal principle as to succession to the obligation to return lease deposit

A lessee who meets the requirements for setting up against the lessee under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act by leasing a house before the cancellation of the contract by acquiring ownership and losing ownership due to the cancellation of the contract, and completing the delivery and resident registration of the house, and thereby satisfying the requirements for setting up against the lessee under the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, constitutes a third party who is not infringed on the right due to the cancellation of the contract pursuant to the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, notwithstanding the cancellation of the contract which is based on the lessor’s right to lease, he/she may set up against the new owner (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da17653 delivered on August 20, 196). In such cases,

Therefore, the conclusion that the court below affirmed the defendant's obligation to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the succession to the obligation to return the lease deposit under Article 548 (1) of the Civil Act and Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, contrary

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application of the Housing Lease Protection Act

The lower court determined that the Defendant was obligated to return the full amount of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff on the ground that the use of the said house is naturally accompanied by the use of the said site, and that it cannot be recognized that the said leased land was used for a purpose other than the purpose of residence, because it was not a house site, in this case where a house for residence and the land

In light of the records, this part of the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of lease deposit subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act, violation of tin duty, or incomplete hearing

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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)