The meaning of opposing power recognized pursuant to Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act;

The meaning of opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act is only that the lessee can claim the validity of the previous lease against the new owner even if the owner of the lessor is changed, and it does not mean that the right to preferential payment is recognized in the auction procedure.

Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court's East Branch (83Gahap32)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 5,500,000 won with the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the service of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

On August 13, 1981, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer has been made with the name of the defendant on August 13, 1981 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list, which was originally owned by Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the real estate in this case”). On May 17, 1982, the principal registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was made on the basis of the above provisional registration. On September 8, 1979, the non-party Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. acquired a maximum debt amount of KRW 6,80,000 with respect to the real estate in this case, and applied for voluntary auction on September 30, 1981 with the permission of successful auction on March 23, 1982, the non-party 2 acquired the ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 2 on June 10, 1982 with the permission of the successful auction on March 23, 1982; the defendant did not dispute over the above real estate in this case with the non-party 1084.

However, the plaintiff, as the cause of claim of this case, entered into a lease agreement with the non-party 1 on November 14, 1980 for the lease deposit of this case from November 25, 1980 to six months from the lease deposit of this case, and completed the move-in report under the Resident Registration Act of April 29, 1981, the plaintiff can claim the right of lease against the defendant who was protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act and completed the principal registration of the transfer of ownership based on the above provisional registration as the owner of the above real estate, and the defendant succeeded to the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's right of lease against the non-party 1 as the owner of the above real estate without any dispute over the above lease deposit of this case cannot be seen as being valid as the plaintiff's right of lease deposit of this case from the previous auction procedure without any objection to the transfer of lease deposit of the non-party 3 (No objection to the above provisional registration of this case).

Judges Kim Yong-han (Presiding Judge)