Effect of the attachment and assignment order of the lease deposit repayment claim against the de facto lessee who is not the contracting party;

Even if the contract was prepared by stating the name of the tenant of the lease contract in the name of a third party, not the principal, as the actual tenant is the principal, the seizure and assignment order of the lease deposit repayment claim based on the claim against the third party is valid, and even if the lessor has agreed to be the recipient of the future deposit return claim to be the third party, the consent is not based on the certificate with a fixed date, and it cannot be asserted against the whole creditor.

Article 450(2) of the Civil Act; Article 563(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 12, 73Da1025 decided March 12, 1974 (Law No. 450(18), 10677, 486No. 7766)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul Civil History District Court (81 Gohap588)

All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay 1,500,000 won each to the plaintiffs.

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

The original judgment shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In light of the whole purport of the testimony (except for the portion not trusted below) and pleading of the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (Ruling No. 1412) without dispute as to the establishment of the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff 1 prepared a notarial deed (No. 1411 of Certificate No. 81) between the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 as to a promissorysory note No. 1,500,000 in Hyundai Joint Law Office, and the non-party 2 prepared a notarial deed (No. 81 of Certificate No. 1412 of Certificate No. 81) between the above non-party and the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as to the above notarial deed, the plaintiff et al. cannot be paid to the non-party 2 as to the non-party 2's right to request the return of the whole amount of the above 1,500,010 won and 1481 of the above non-party 2.

First, the defendant did not conclude the above lease contract with the non-party 1, and thus, the above assignment order under the premise that the non-party 2 had no obligation to return the above lease deposit to the non-party 1. The non-party 2 did not agree with the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1'

Next, even if the defendant entered into the above lease contract with the non-party 2, the right to receive the lease deposit against the non-party 2 was already transferred between the defendant and the non-party 2 and the non-party 1. Therefore, the defendant was ordered to pay the above building on October 22, 1981, and the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since it was paid 4,50,000 won. Thus, as seen above, it is argued that the contract was made between the non-party 2 and the non-party 1, but it is recognized that the contract was for the purpose of the claim security of the non-party 1, but the right to claim the future deposit to be acquired upon the termination of the lease contract with the defendant, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's consent to return the deposit to the non-party 1 upon the non-party 2's request is a notification of the above claim, and thus, it cannot be asserted that the defendant's claim was not asserted by the non-party 1, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff's obligee 17.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,500,000 won to the plaintiff et al., so that the plaintiff et al.'s claim for objection is justified, and the judgment of the court below is just and there is no ground for appeal by the defendant, and all of the appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost.

Judges Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge) Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge)