(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.02.04 2018가단20323

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.02.04 2018가단20323

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The Intervenor E, which is Defendant C’s Intervenor, shall be KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff as well as the Plaintiff on November 23, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the 3rd floor I of H building G located in G (hereinafter “instant housing”) at the Government-Si of the Republic of Korea owned by F and F, with a deposit of KRW 150,00,000, and the lease period of KRW 24 months, and paid the said deposit to F. The Plaintiff, on September 1, 2016, entered into possession of the instant housing and completed the move-in report on the instant housing on September 2, 2016, and obtained the same fixed date.

B. Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant housing on September 30, 2016.

C. Defendant C’s Intervenor D completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 8, 2018, which was after the instant lawsuit was filed. D.

Defendant C’s acquiring intervenor E completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant housing on October 29, 2019.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5, 13-1, 15, respectively.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract for the instant housing was terminated on August 31, 2018.

However, since the ownership of the instant housing after the lease agreement on the instant housing was successively transferred by Defendant C to Defendant C in the name of Defendant C’s assignee D and the assignee of the said D, the said E, who is the final owner, sought the return of the deposit amount of KRW 150 million under the said lease agreement pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

3. According to Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, a lessee of a house has an opposing power against a third party by moving into the building and making a resident registration, and where a leased building is transferred after having the opposing power, the transferee is deemed to have succeeded to the status of the lessor.

In this case, the obligation to refund the lease deposit shall be transferred to the transferee who succeeded to the status of the lessor and the obligation of the transferor shall be interpreted to be extinguished.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Da1114, Mar. 10, 1987). The Plaintiff is a house of this case.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제3조

-주택임대차보호법 제3조 제4항

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.02.04 2018가단20323

-대법원 1993. 11. 23. 선고 93다4083 판결

-청주지방법원 2020.08.28 2019가단5185

-대법원 2022. 12. 1. 선고 2021다266631 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.21 2017가단24449