The legal relationship in which the transferee of the house which is the object of the opposing right has returned the deposit for lease.

In cases where the ownership of the leased house has been transferred after the lessee has obtained the opposing power against a third party, the transferee succeeds to the status of the lessor, the obligation to return the leased house also has to be transferred in combination with the ownership of the house, and accordingly the transferor’s obligation is extinguished. Therefore, even if the transferee returned the lease deposit to the lessee, this is merely a performance of his/her obligation, and it cannot be said that the transferee gains profit without any legal cause by paying the transferor’s obligation on behalf of the transferor, or by removing the transferor’s obligation to return the amount equivalent to the above amount.

(a) Article 3(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act; (b) Article 453(2) of the Civil Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 114 (Gong1, 1987, 632) (Law No.1987, 632, Oct. 24, 1989)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 92Na15274 delivered on February 19, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

On June 23, 1984, the court below acknowledged that the non-party resided in 2 partitions and 13 million won among the housing of this case from the defendant on June 23, 1984, and that the non-party had opposing power as prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act by closing a move-in report on July 2, 199, and that the plaintiff purchased the housing of this case on September 20, 191 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 8, 192. The plaintiff asserted that "the non-party was excluded from dividends for the reason that he was entitled to demand distribution at the above auction, but did not have opposing power, and that the plaintiff paid the above amount to the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff did not have an obligation to compensate for damages equivalent to the amount of the housing of this case."

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)