In a case where Party A, a licensed real estate agent, owns an apartment but rents an apartment with a rent deposit with a significantly lower rental price than the market price in order to meet the requirements for a small lessee, the case affirming the judgment of the court below that Party A does not constitute a small lessee subject to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act, on the grounds that Party A is not a small lessee subject to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

The case affirming the judgment below holding that, in case where Gap, a licensed real estate agent, owned an apartment, leased an apartment house with a lease deposit, the sum of the maximum debt amount of which exceeds the market price and which is expected to be started immediately, which is remarkably lower than the market price to meet the requirements for small lessee, and then paid the balance of the deposit in front of the payment date and the object of the initial lease agreement and obtained the fixed date after the moving-in report, and subsequently, as Gap did not receive dividends in the auction procedure commenced immediately after the moving-in report, Gap did not object to the distribution, the case affirming the judgment below which held that Gap did not constitute a small lessee subject to protection of the Housing Lease Protection Act because it concluded a lease agreement to obtain unjust profits by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act which

Articles 3 (1) and 8 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Plaintiff

Sejong Mutual Savings Bank (Law Firm Subdivision, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Na19497 Decided July 23, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 11, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 with Nonparty 1 as KRW 2,000 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) on the 16th day of the same month, and paid 20,000 won to the lessor on the 16th day of the lease contract. The Plaintiff did not receive the lease deposit from Nonparty 2 as KRW 50,000,000,000, KRW 106,000,000,000, KRW 106,000,000,000,000 for KRW 10,000,000,000,000, KRW 10,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

2. Furthermore, the court below determined as follows: ① Nonparty 3, the husband of the Plaintiff, was well aware of the provisions of the Housing Lease Protection Act as a licensed real estate agent and mediated the conclusion of the lease agreement; ② the Plaintiff, despite holding the apartment owned by the Plaintiff, leased the apartment of this case, the sum of the maximum debt amount exceeds the market price, and anticipated commencement of an auction on the apartment of this case, and thus, concluded the lease agreement of this case by paying only a significantly low lease deposit in light of the apartment price, so that the auction on the apartment of this case would meet the requirements of small lessee; ③ after the conclusion of the lease agreement of this case, auction on the apartment of this case was commenced; ③ payment of the balance of the lease deposit amount before the due date and the subject date of the lease agreement of this case; ④ The Plaintiff completed the move-in report by paying the lease deposit amount before the due date and six months after the lease of the housing of this case; and ④ the Plaintiff’s right to preferential reimbursement on behalf of the non-party 6, the Plaintiff, upon the commencement of the lease agreement, did not fall under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

3. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on small lessee of

4. 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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)