(a) Scope of a transferee prescribed in Article 3 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act;

B. Whether the lessee’s right to claim the return of deposit is extinguished due to confusion where the lessee who completed resident registration after the establishment registration was completed at the auction procedure (negative)

A. The transferee of the leased house succeeding to the position of the lessee under Article 3(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act refers only to the income earner who is unable to respond to the lessee.

B. If a lessee who completed the resident registration after the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage obtains the leased house at an auction procedure, the lessee as a successful bidder is not a transferee who succeeds to the lessee's occupation, and there is no room for extinguishment due to confusion.

Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Park Jong-soo

Tae Tae-gun

Daegu District Court of First Instance (86dan3041)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,500,000 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery day of the copy of the complaint of this case ( August 30, 1986) to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The judgment revoking the original judgment, dismissing the plaintiff, and bearing the plaintiff's total costs of lawsuit.

원고는 1984.11.12. 소외 주식회사 부응주택(이하 소외 회사라고 한다)으로부터 소외회사 소유인 대구 동구 방촌동 890의 40 지상시멘벽돌조 스라브지붕 2층 주택 1층 63.47평방미터, 2층 50.97평방미터 중 2층부분(이하 이 사건 주낵이라 한다)을 임차보증금 4,500,000원, 기간 1년으로 정하여 임차하여 1985.1.21.부터 거주하여 왔는데, 피고가 1986.3.31. 이 사건 주택을 매수하면서 원 피고 및 소외회사 3자 사이에 피고가 이 사건 주택에 대한 임대인의 지위를 소외 회사로부터 승계하기로 약정하였는 바, 임대차기간이 만료되었으므로 임차보증금의 반환을 구한다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 을제 1 내지 3호증의 각 기재와 당심증인 엄달수, 이맹우의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 모아 보면, 원고가 소외회사와 사이에 위 주장과 같은 임대차계약을 체결하고 위 임차보증금을 지급한 후 1985.1.21.경부터 거주하고 있는 사실 및 피고가 1986.3.31. 소외회사로부터 소외회사가 피고에게 부담한 돈 14,000,000원의 약속어음할인금지급채무의 대물변제조로 이 사건 주택에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 경료받은 사실은 인정할 수 있으나, 원·피고 및 소외회사 3자 사이에 이 사건 주택에 대한 임대인의 지위를 소외회사로부터 피고가 승계하기로 약정하였다는 점에 관하여는 당심증인 엄달수의 증언에 의하여도 그와 같은 약정을 한 바 없다는 사실이 인정될 뿐이고 달리 이를 인정할 아무런 증거가 없으므로 원고의 위 주장은 이유없다.

The plaintiff asserts that even if there is no such agreement, the defendant succeeded to a lessor's status pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act (the "Act"), so the defendant cannot be exempted from the obligation to return the deposit. Thus, according to each of the above Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Gap evidence No. 2 without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the defendant completed his resident registration on February 14, 1985, the transfer of ownership of the house of this case before acquiring ownership of the house of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is a lessee who can oppose the defendant pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the Act, and according to Article 3 (2) of the Act, the transferee of the leased house shall be deemed a lessor's succession to the status of the lessor. Accordingly, the transferee of the leased house includes the person who acquired the leased house as a substitute payment for the house of this case, and the defendant has the duty to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion that since the right to claim for the return of the lease deposit was extinguished due to the plaintiff's succession to the plaintiff as the successful bidder, since the right to claim for the return of the lease deposit was exercised after the ownership of the house of this case was acquired, the defendant's lessor's position as the successful bidder, and thus, the plaintiff's right to claim for the return of the lease deposit was extinguished due to confusion. Thus, Article 3 (2) of the Act includes not only the acquirer by legal act such as sale but also the acquisitor by legal provision such as auction but also the acquirer who is not able to claim for the right of lease. Thus, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the above, since the plaintiff's resident registration of this case was completed on December 24, 1984 as to the house of this case, the plaintiff's right to claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case cannot be accepted as the plaintiff's right to claim for the return of the lease deposit against the successful bidder of this case which was established on April 24, 1986.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from August 30, 1986 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case which the plaintiff seeks from August 30, 1986 to the date of full payment as a result of the expiration of the lease term as to the above 4,50,000 won for the above lease deposit and the above 4,500 won for the above lease term. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is reasonable, and the original judgment is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are borne by the defendant who has lost

Judges Sohn-hee (Presiding Judge)