Whether the Housing Lease Protection Act recognizes preferential payment rights under the Housing Lease Protection Act, where a corporation has leased a house and has a resident registration under its employees and has a fixed date (negative)

In order for a tenant to claim preferential payment right under Article 3-2 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, he shall meet the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3 (1) of the same Act and the fixed date on a lease agreement document, and the requirements for counterclaim shall be met at the time of the delivery of the house and the completion of resident registration. Article 1 of the same Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of the people by prescribing special cases on the lease of a residential building, and thereby to ensure the stability of the residential life of ordinary people who are natural persons," and it cannot be said that the above Act was enacted in order to protect the stability of the residential life of ordinary people who are natural persons, and it cannot be said that the corporation cannot meet the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which is one of the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3 (1) of the same Act at the beginning, and therefore, it cannot be asserted preferential payment right even if a corporation has completed the resident registration of the corporation,

Articles 1, 3 (1), and 3-2 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

2. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term.

Hansung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na21398 delivered on January 9, 1996

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below: (1) decided on October 27, 191, 200, Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address omitted); (2) decided on October 27, 199, the lease deposit amount of 63,00,00; and (2) paid the lease deposit around that time; (2) decided on May 8, 1992, the Plaintiff’s alteration of the lease deposit amount of 10,000,000 won to 10,000 won to 20,000 won for the above apartment; (3) decided on May 9, 1993; (3) decided on May 10, 199; (4) decided on May 9, 193, the Plaintiff, an employee of the Plaintiff, 200, 300,000 won of the above apartment mortgage; and (3) decided on August 23, 1992, the Defendant had the above fixed date of sale of the apartment complex.

2. However, in order for a tenant to claim the right to preferential payment under Article 3-2 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, he shall meet the requirements for counterclaim and the fixed date on a lease agreement document under Article 3 (1) of the same Act, and the requirements for counterclaim shall be met at the time of the delivery of the house and the completion of resident registration. Article 1 of the same Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of the people by prescribing special cases on the lease of a residential building, and thereby to ensure the stability of the residential life of the ordinary people who are natural persons," and it cannot be said that the above Act was enacted to protect the legal person, and the legal person cannot be said to be subject to the protection of the legal person, in light of the fact that the legal person cannot meet one of the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, one of the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3-2 (1) of the same Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the legal person's resident registration.

Therefore, although the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the right to preferential payment under the Housing Lease Protection Act, which recognized the plaintiff's right to preferential payment under the premise that the plaintiff met the requirements for counterclaim under the plaintiff's employee's resident registration. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)