Mog Capital Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seon, Attorneys Kim Min-cat et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 21, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 109,817,124 won and 108,00,000 won with 18% interest per annum from September 6, 2014 to the date of full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 129,60,000 won with 18% interest per annum.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 9, 2013, Nonparty 1 leased the apartment house of Geumcheon-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) ○○○○○○dong, Seoul, as security money of KRW 210,00,000, and the lease period from May 15, 2013 to May 15, 2015, and paid the deposit money to the Defendant around that time. Nonparty 1 obtained a fixed date on May 13, 2013, with the lease agreement (No. 2) stating the above lease agreement terms.

B. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 108,00,00 to Nonparty 1, and was finally and conclusively affirmed to the effect that “Nonindicted 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff 109,817,124 won and the amount of KRW 108,00,000 per annum from September 6, 2014 to the day of full payment” in the lawsuit related to the loan claim (Seoul Southern District Court 2014Da23125).

C. When the Plaintiff lends money to Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff was set up a collateral limit of KRW 129,60,000 with respect to the claim for return of the lease deposit against the Defendant by Nonparty 1, and the Defendant accepted the establishment of the said collateral right.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts stated in paragraph (1), the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the pledgee, the amount of KRW 109,817,124 and KRW 108,00,00 per annum from September 6, 2014 to the date of full payment, within the limit of KRW 129,60,000,000, as the obligor of the claim for return of the lease deposit which is the object of the pledge.

B. As to this, the Defendant’s assertion of exemption. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant sold the apartment as set forth in No. 1-A, which was the object of the lease contract concluded with Nonparty 1 on April 10, 2014, to Nonparty 2, the Defendant entered into the above sales contract with Nonparty 2, which entered into a special agreement with Nonparty 2 to succeed to the lease relationship at the time of the above sales contract, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration for the above leased object was completed on May 30, 30 of the same year. The Housing Lease Protection Act applies to the above facts and the facts set forth in No. 1-A, Nonparty 1 is a lessee opposing the apartment as set forth in the above apartment as set forth in No. 1-A, and Nonparty 2 acquired the ownership of the above apartment as to Nonparty 1, who succeeded to the lessor’s status (the obligation to return the lease deposit). Thus, the Defendant’s claim for exemption is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Judges Nam-ju