207Gahap23053 De-right of lease on a deposit basis

A

1. B

2. C Cooperatives:

March 5, 2008

April 2, 2008

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation on August 25, 2006 for the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon which was completed by the Busan District Court No. 1252 on January 9, 2004 as to the real estate stated in the attached list on August 25, 2006.

B. As to the registration of cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis as described in the above paragraph (1), the defendant CF made an expression of consent.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 25, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B on the condition that the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff will be leased at KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, and the lease term from August 25, 2003 to KRW 36 months (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease agreement”). Furthermore, on January 9, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the above Defendant for the purpose of securing the return of the said lease deposit, and entered into a lease agreement with the said Defendant on the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease agreement”).

B. On January 14, 2004, Defendant B entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant C Cooperatives (hereinafter “Defendant C Cooperatives”) on the maximum debt amount of KRW 39 million to secure a loan that it owes to Defendant CF and entered into, on the same day, an additional registration for the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis in the name of Defendant CF on the ground of the aforementioned mortgage agreement. Meanwhile, Defendant B occupied and used the instant real estate under an order from August 25, 2003 under the instant lease agreement, and did so on November 28, 2007, and did not pay the remainder of the rent to the Plaintiff or the amount of the unpaid rent, etc. as the remainder of the rent or the management fee, etc. exceeds the lease deposit amount.

[Grounds for Recognition: Confession as to Defendant B (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act); the fact that there is no dispute over Defendant C Association; and the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

Where a right to lease on a deposit basis has expired due to expiration of the period of chonsegwon, the right to lease on a deposit basis naturally extinguishs without registering cancellation of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and the right to lease on a deposit basis naturally ceases to exist if the subject matter of the right to lease on a deposit basis is extinguished, so the mortgagee of the right to lease on a deposit basis cannot claim the right to lease on a deposit basis any more than the owner of the subject matter of the right to lease on a deposit basis (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da31301, Sept. 17, 199). In a case where a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis bears the obligation to cancel the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis, the mortgagee who has made an additional registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis has the obligation under the substantive law to consent necessary

According to the above facts, the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case has ceased to exist on August 25, 2006 due to the expiration of the term of existence on August 25, 2006, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case. Defendant Treasury is a third party who has a interest in the registration, and is obligated to express his/her intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of the right

B. Determination on the assertion of Defendant’s credit cooperative

Defendant Treasury asserts to the purport that since the Plaintiff neglected the possession and use of the instant real estate without filing a request for the surrender of name, and intentionally caused the unpaid rent, etc., all of them cannot be deducted from the lease deposit, all of them cannot be deemed to have extinguished all of Defendant B’s lease deposit claims, and even if the aforementioned lease deposit claim was extinguished due to the full deduction of the unpaid rent, etc. for household affairs, this is due to the Plaintiff’s intentional act, and thus, it cannot be complied with the Plaintiff’s claim.

The defendant's safe cannot refuse the above acceptance obligation solely on the grounds as alleged by the defendant's safe, and even if the plaintiff's intentional act was not paid due to the plaintiff's intentional act as alleged by the defendant's safe, it cannot be said that it cannot be deducted from the lease deposit, or the plaintiff cannot claim the extinction of the right to return the lease deposit, and there is no evidence to acknowledge such circumstance. Thus, the defendant's above assertion does not appear to have any reason.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judges Kang Jin-ju

Judges Nam Sung-woo