The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act to guarantee the stability of the residential life of citizens by prescribing special cases concerning residential buildings, and the purport of the Housing Lease Protection Act’s small lessee system under the Housing Lease Protection Act to guarantee the recovery of the deposit in consideration of social policy measures to protect the small-sum lessee who is the socially weak, even if the creditor entered into a lease contract with the debtor on the housing owned by the debtor and resided therein after the moving-in report was completed, the main purpose of the lease contract is not to use the housing for residential purpose, but to recover the claim equivalent to the small-sum deposit, which is actually protected as the small-sum lessee, from the perspective of protecting the small-sum lessee who is the socially weak.

(1) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The principle of free evaluation of evidence declared by Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act shall not be bound by the rules of evidence in the form of formal and legal evidence, and does not allow a judge’s arbitrary judgment.” Thus, the fact finding shall be in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of justice and equity, and even if the fact finding falls under the discretion of the fact-finding court, it shall not go beyond the limit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da7198, 77204, Apr. 13, 2012).”

Even if the facts that have been recognized in the related civil cases, etc. have already been established are valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances, the Supreme Court shall not dismiss them without any justifiable reasons.