(영문) 대법원 2020.7.9.선고 2020다223781 판결

The part of the original judgment regarding the claim for delivery of real estate shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds for appeal are determined.

1. Part on the claim for delivery of the apartment in this case

A. The lower court, even if the instant lease agreement was renewed after January 31, 2018, cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 3 subparag. 10 of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the instant lease agreement expired on January 31, 2018, and the Plaintiff, a lessee of the instant lease agreement, can directly claim for the return of the said lease deposit against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, which is a lessor, as a lessee of the instant lease agreement, on the ground that the said lease agreement was renewed after January 31, 2018, and thus, accepted the claim for the delivery of the instant apartment complex filed against the Defendant B for the sake of preserving the said claim.

B. (1) However, the lower court’s determination on the premise that the instant lease agreement has expired on January 31, 2018 is difficult for the following reasons. (2) Article 3 of the former Special Act on Rental Housing (amended by Act No. 15730, Aug. 14, 2018; hereinafter referred to as “Private Rental Housing Act”) provides that matters not prescribed in the Rental Housing Act shall be applied to the said case. The main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the period of lease shall be less than two years if the lessee violates the duty of renewal or renewal of the lease agreement under Article 6(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 1572, Apr. 1, 201; 2005; 3) and that, if the lessee violates the duty of renewal or renewal of the lease agreement under Article 6(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, the term of lease shall not be extended by 5 months to the lessee.

The aforementioned provisions are intended to cancel or terminate a lease agreement for a private house or restrict the rejection of renewal thereof. In light of the purpose of the enactment and legislative intent of the said agreement, it shall be deemed mandatory provisions excluding judicial validity of the agreement. Therefore, if a lease agreement for a private house subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act is implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, it shall be deemed that the term of lease is two years, barring special circumstances where the parties separately agreed to fix the term of lease for at least two years. Furthermore, the lessor may refuse to renew the lease agreement for the purpose of 10 years, 20 years, 3 years, 30 years, 30, 100, 100, 200, 300, 100,000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

According to the above factual relationship, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation did not express its intent to refuse the renewal of the instant lease agreement by presenting the following grounds arising from the relevant provisions of Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private Rental Housing Act or the Standard Lease Agreement concerning the refusal to renew the lease agreement, etc. by the closing date of the argument in the lower judgment. Rather, the instant lease agreement was renewed on February 1, 2018 and was still still in existence, and the Defendant requested the Defendant to pay the increased amount of deposit, etc. under the premise that it is still still in existence, and the Defendant has already completed the implementation of the said claim. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Korea Land and Housing Corporation as a lessor is no longer able to assert the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement, which was anticipated to be terminated on January 31, 2018.

In addition, the obligee’s subrogation right is the exercise of the obligor’s right against the third obligor. Thus, the third obligor may oppose the obligee on all grounds of defense against the obligor. However, the obligee is only able to assert the obligee within the scope of grounds able to be asserted by the obligor himself/herself, and the obligee cannot assert any independent circumstance between himself/herself and the third obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4787, May 28, 2009). It cannot be viewed as a rejection of renewal of the instant lease. The same applies to the Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant apartment on the premise that the period of termination of the instant lease agreement is terminated by the expiration of the period of termination of the lease, on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s independent circumstance, the obligee’s subrogation right does not necessarily constitute a ground for extension of the lease agreement, renewal of the lease agreement, extension of the lease contract without consent of the obligee, and renewal of the lease deposit itself cannot be viewed as being subject to the obligee’s prior consent.

4) Nevertheless, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court cited a request for extradition of the instant apartment on the ground that the instant lease agreement was terminated on January 31, 2018 without being renewed, and thus, the said request was accepted. In so determining, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation by violating logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the legal doctrine on the renewal, etc. of the lease agreement on private rental housing, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Part on the claim for loans of this case

Although Defendant filed a final appeal against the entire judgment of the original court, the final appeal and the final appeal did not indicate specific grounds for objection in the document of final appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the request for delivery of real estate among the judgment of the original court is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.