Whether a lessee of a small amount of money leased has preferential right to payment against the mortgagee in cases where the building used as a store or office was established and then the building was changed to the residential building (affirmative)

The purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of national residence by prescribing special cases on the Civil Act concerning the lease of a residential building (Article 1), and to reduce or restrict the scope of the application without reasonable grounds or grounds. Article 2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act applies to the lease of all or part of a residential building, and does not distinguish whether a leased house is a building permitted by the competent authority or a building completed registration, and the details of a building are not restricted under the building registry. Therefore, a small lessee, who leased a building used as a store or office, has the right to be paid a certain amount of a deposit in preference to the mortgagee pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, unless there are special circumstances, after the establishment of a mortgage on a building used as a store or office, has been changed to its purpose of use as a residential building and has changed to its purpose of use as a residential building.

Articles 1, 2 and 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Plaintiff Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Jeon Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 2

Defendant 3 and 3 others

Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Na6195 Decided February 6, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of the national residential life by prescribing special cases concerning the lease of a residential building (Article 1), and it is not permitted to reduce or restrict the scope of the application without reasonable grounds or grounds. Article 2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act applies to the lease of all or part of a residential building, and does not distinguish whether the leased house is a building permitted by the competent authority or a building completed registration, and the details of the building are not restricted under the building registry. Therefore, since the Housing Lease Protection Act does not restrict the "the details of the building" under the building registry, the right to collateral security is established after the building was used as a store or office and the building was changed to the purpose of use as a residential building, and a small-sum lessee who leased the building is entitled to receive a certain amount of the deposit in preference to the mortgagee pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff and the non-party who owned each real estate of this case prior to the change of use on January 28, 1999 entered into a mortgage agreement of 392,00,000 won with the maximum debt amount, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the 30th of the same month; the plaintiff was a house of 1,2,3,4 in the registry of the building of this case at the time when the plaintiff was established the above mortgage; the first floor was a church; the second floor was a church; the second floor was a party hall; the third floor was a party hall; the third floor was a office; the fourth floor was used as a house; the non-party leased the entire building of this case to the defendants and the co-defendants of the first instance trial; the "the details of the building" in the registry of the building of this case was a church, the second floor, the second floor, the third floor, and the third and the multi-family house unit was registered; and the designated parties and the designated parties under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

The above judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of collateral security or the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)