Whether the lease contract for lease on a deposit basis for a building is effective if the person liable to lease on a deposit basis for the building prepares the lease contract by agreement with the owner of the building and the third party and continues to occupy and use the building.

Even in cases where (A) made a new lease contract under which only the name of the person having chonsegwon was changed to (B) by agreement with the owner of the building and the owner of the building, if (a) continued to possess and use the building, the original lease contract cannot be deemed to have been cancelled or invalidated, but only the security deposit return claim is deemed to have been transferred to (B).

Articles 449 and 450 of the Civil Act

Madhee

Republic of Korea Exchange

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the provisional seizure order of claim No. 83Ka1014 dated September 1, 1983, the execution of provisional seizure against the claim stated in the attached list of the same day by the defendant as the debtor of the non-party leapmon uniform and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the third debtor.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On May 14, 1983, Nonparty 2 entered into an obligatory lease contract with the deposit money of KRW 11,00,00 with respect to the lease money of KRW 21 per unit of the second floor of the second floor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 7,000 and KRW 196-247, which is owned by the said Han Chang-gu. On September 14, 1983, the Defendant, as Seoul District Court branch branch branch of Seoul District Court No. 83Ka1014 on September 1, 199, on the claim for the repayment of the above claim for the deposit money for Han Chang-do, which was issued to Nonparty 1 as the obligor, and the original copy of the said decision was delivered to Nonparty 2 on the same day, and it is not disputed between the parties with respect to the above claim for the deposit money of KRW 10,000,000,000 in the name of Nonparty 1, the title of Nonparty 1, the witness and the witness testimony of the above Plaintiff 1.

On June 10, 1983, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff as the obligee of the claim for the refund of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis by promising to invalidate the lease on a deposit basis with the Plaintiff on May 14, 1983, and signing the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the said Han-gu on the same day retroactively from the date of the lease contract between the Plaintiff on the same day, and thus, the obligee of the claim for the refund of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis was the Plaintiff. As such, the above facts are recognized in light of the fact that the Plaintiff occupied the above real estate on June 10, 1983 by testimony of Lee Jong-ok, and the Plaintiff did not possess the possession of the above real estate on a deposit basis, the former contract was rescinded or invalidated on May 14, 1983, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge this fact. However, upon combination of the above facts, the Plaintiff cannot be said to have given notice to the Plaintiff of the claim for the transfer of the deposit for lease on a deposit against the Plaintiff, the assignee of the above claim.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of the execution of provisional seizure on the premise that the plaintiff was a new creditor of the claim for return of deposit money for lease on a deposit basis before the original copy of the above provisional seizure is served on the non-party Han Chang-gu, is dismissed as without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the

Judges Song Jae-in (Presiding Judge)