beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, with the exception that the part of "decision on the defendant's argument" (from four parallels to five parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance) of the judgment of the court of first instance (from four parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance) is changed to the following contents: therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus,
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. In order for the Plaintiff, who leased the instant officetel from the Defendant’s assertion, to oppose the Defendant, who became the owner of the instant officetel donated from C, as a lessee, the delivery of the housing and the completion period to demand a distribution of resident registration shall be maintained until the completion period to demand a distribution. On January 6, 2017, prior to the completion date of the instant lease agreement ( February 24, 2017), the Plaintiff reported a transfer while leaving the instant officetel.
Therefore, as the Plaintiff lost opposing power during the lease contract period, the Plaintiff cannot claim the return of lease deposit against the Defendant to whom the ownership of the instant officetel was transferred.
B. Determination 1) The delivery and resident registration of a rental house are not only the requirements for acquiring the opposing power of the right of lease but also the requirements for the existence of the opposing power (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da143, Jan. 17, 1989). However, in a case where a lessee acquired the opposing power and the ownership of a rental house is transferred while the opposing power remains in existence, the transferee succeeds to the status of the lessor, and thus, the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit also is also transferred to the transferee. As such, the transferee was transferred to another location after the transferee became liable for the refund of the lease deposit, and the obligation to return the lease deposit already occurred is not extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3615, Dec. 7, 1993).