beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part on which the court determines the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the status of the lessor of a house is succeeded to the transferee of the house, the overdue rent claim against the lessee of the house transferor incurred before the transfer is not succeeded to the transferee of the house unless it satisfies the requirements of separate assignment of claims, and thus, the Plaintiff does not succeed to the Plaintiff unless the Plaintiff declares a special intention that the obligation for delay with respect to the repayment of the deposit
However, a lessee’s overdue loan claim is separate from a lessee’s claim for return of the leased object and a lessee’s claim for return of the lease deposit against the lessor arising after the termination of the lease relationship due to the occurrence of the lease term. The obligation for delay of the repayment of the lease deposit is a subordinate obligation arising at a fixed rate corresponding thereto, premised on the existence of the obligation to return the lease deposit, which is the principal obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2940, Mar. 14, 2008). Since the overdue loan claim separately satisfies the requirements for the transfer of the lease deposit, the obligation for delay of the repayment of the lease deposit is succeeded to the Plaintiff as a subordinate obligation by the assumption of the obligation to return the lease deposit with the intention to assume the obligation to return the lease deposit without a separate assumption of obligation.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. The plaintiff asserts that only 14,00,000 won of the principal of the lease deposit as the subject matter of a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, and that the part of the damages for delay shall not be succeeded.