beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, who owned the instant housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the premise that the second floor of the instant housing was leased by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,00,000, and the lease term of KRW 52.21 square meters from March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. The Plaintiff paid the security deposit to the Defendant in accordance with the instant lease agreement, and resided in the above second floor upon delivery, and completed the move-in report on the instant housing.
C. Meanwhile, the Korea Asset Management E.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S.”) purchased the instant housing and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 30, 2016.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Since the lease term of the Plaintiff’s assertion expires, the lessor, the Defendant, is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff as the lessee.
3. Determination
(a) Where the ownership of the leased house is transferred after the lessee of the house has obtained the opposing power against a third party, the transferee shall succeed to the status of the lessor, and the transferor shall lose the status of the lessor, and the obligation to refund the deposit shall expire; and
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da47318, May 23, 1995).
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff is a tenant with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act and thereafter the non-party company that acquired the house of this case thereafter succeeded to the status of the lessor and the defendant, the transferor, lost the status of the lessor, and the obligation to refund the deposit against the plaintiff was extinguished. Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek the return of the deposit for lease, separate from claiming the return of the deposit for lease against the non-party company, the transferee, and therefore the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
4...