logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1989. 10. 24. 선고 88다카13172 판결
[부당이득금][공1989.12.15.(862),1746]
Main Issues

Whether the transferor's obligation to return the lease deposit is extinguished in case where the house which is the object of the opposing right of lease is transferred (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

If the ownership of the house is transferred after the lessee has the opposing power against the third party, the transferee succeeds the status of the lessor, and the obligation to return the lease deposit also is combined with the ownership of the house, and accordingly the transferor's obligation to return the lease deposit is extinguished.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 32 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Central District Court Decision 88Na3801 delivered on March 30, 1988

Notes

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Due to this reason

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Examining the facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the real estate of this case with 10/23 shares of 13/23 on April 30, 1984, and leased the house of this case to the Nonparty by means of claim lease deposit amount of KRW 7,000,00,00 among the above real estate, and the Plaintiff divided the deposit amount of KRW 3,043,478 according to the above co-ownership ratio; the Defendant filed a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property to sell the said real estate at auction; and the court below decided that the amount should be distributed to the Plaintiff based on the share ratio of the above real estate; the Plaintiff acquired the above real estate from the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s heir’s share of this case’s ownership at the auction procedure for division of auction under the above judgment; the Plaintiff acquired the above real estate from the Plaintiff on November 20, 1986 and completed the registration of transfer to the Plaintiff on February 17, 1987, and the Nonparty acquired the above house by succession to the ownership deposit after being transferred to the Plaintiff’s ownership.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-서울민사지방법원 1988.3.30.선고 88나3801
본문참조조문