beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's supplementary claim is dismissed in this court.
3...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following “judgments on preliminary claims”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Determination on the conjunctive claim
A. Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of a lessor pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act as the owner who acquired the instant house, and thereby, was liable for the repayment of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 70 million, the part exceeding KRW 70 million and the damages for delay, out of the obligations under the aforementioned protocol, are considered as damages for delay in returning the lease deposit, and thus, the Plaintiff who acquired the ownership of the instant house does not succeed to the said part.
Therefore, the part of the execution clause on succession to the plaintiff, which was granted on May 19, 2015, exceeding KRW 70 million and the part of the delay damages should be denied.
B. Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that a transferee of a rental house which is the object of a lease that meets the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3(1) of the said Act shall be deemed to succeed to the status of a lessor. Since such provision shall be deemed to be a provision on deferred succession under the law, in cases where a rental house is transferred, the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the lease contract in combination with the ownership of the house and succeeds to the lessor as it is, as a result, the transferee is exempted from the obligation to return the deposit, and the transferor is exempted from the obligation to return the deposit to the lessee by withdrawing from the lease relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523, Jan. 17, 2013). In this case, the Plaintiff shall also include the obligation to return the deposit by succeeding all the claims and obligations under the lease agreement with C.