The right to lease on a deposit basis for which 10 years have elapsed shall not be deemed to have expired, and the right to lease on a deposit basis for which 10 years have elapsed after the extinguishment

It is reasonable to cancel the registration of chonsegwon because it is deemed that the right to lease on a deposit basis has been extinguished for ten years after the right to lease on a deposit basis has been extinguished.

○○ Southern District Court -2019-Ban - ○9740

○ ○

Korea

July 18, 2019

September 5, 2019

1. The defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon, which was completed by the Seoul Southern District Court No. 69011 on August 14, 1995, with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building that completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 2015 by acquiring the ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) in the public sale procedure.

B. The deceased ○○○○○ (hereinafter “the deceased on April 7, 2008”) completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “registration of chonsegwon”) on the ground of the contract on April 10, 1995 with respect to the instant building as Seoul Southern District Court No. 6901, Aug. 14, 1995, under the Seoul Southern District Court Order No. 6901, Apr. 28, 1997, with the term of 40 million won, up to April 28, 1997, up to the scope of 18.87 square meters on the land of the instant building (hereinafter “registration of chonsegwon”).

C. On July 10, 2019, the Defendant completed additional registration on July 10, 2019 with respect to the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the instant lease on a deposit basis.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the instant building, 103 No. 103 (hereinafter referred to as “instant 103”) is the place where a lessee CCC concluded a lease agreement on May 31, 1995 and resided from June 6, 1995, and the Deceased was a false person having chonsegwon who did not conclude a lease agreement with BB as to the instant 103, and thus, the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case is invalid.

Even if the deceased is not a person with a false right to lease on a deposit basis, CCC commenced residing from June 6, 1995 to 103, and thus, the deceased lost possession of 103. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the deceased’s claim for the return of lease on a deposit basis against BB from around that time. As such, the statute of limitations expired for the deceased’s claim for the return of lease on a deposit basis against BB or the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to cancel the registration of lease on a deposit

B. The defendant's argument

The registration of the establishment of chonsegwon is to secure the preferential repayment of the deposit money, and since BB or the Plaintiff did not return the deposit money to the deceased, the Plaintiff’s claim to cancel the registration of the lease on a deposit basis of this case is unjust.

C. Determination

1) As to whether the deceased’s registration of chonsegwon was null and void as the person having a false right to lease on a deposit basis, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the deceased was a false person having a right to lease on a deposit basis with BB who was the former owner of the instant 103, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on

2) Next, we examine the argument that the claim for the return of the deposit against the deceased’s BB or the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.

The right to lease on a deposit basis under the Civil Act, which has completed the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, is not concurrently characterized by the nature of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and the right to lease on a deposit basis is naturally extinguished without cancellation of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis if the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis expires (referring to the Supreme Court Decision 2003Da35659 Decided March 25, 2005, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen in the evidence and evidence No. 3 as seen earlier, namely, the lease contract of this case was made on April 10, 1995, and the term of lease on a deposit basis of the lease on a deposit basis was until April 28, 1997, and Article 31(1) of the Civil Act provides that the term of lease on a deposit basis shall not exceed 10 years. Thus, even if the lease contract of this case has been implicitly renewed, it shall be deemed that the lease contract of this case was terminated on April 27, 2005, and CCC received sales proceeds as the lessee of this case under the lease contract of this case in the public sale procedure of the building of this case, in view of the fact that the lease on a deposit basis under the lease contract of this case was terminated on April 28, 2015, and the lease on a deposit basis was terminated by the extinctive prescription period from April 28, 2005.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.