beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, one of the co-owners of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and on behalf of the other co-owners, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million and the term of lease from September 27, 2014 to September 26, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. The parties' assertion
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract of this case was terminated at the expiration of the term, one of the joint lessees is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff at the same time as the Plaintiff’s delivery of the building of this case from the joint lessor.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the share of the instant building was transferred to the Korea Development Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Development Corporation”) and thus, does not bear any obligation as lessors.
3. Article 3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that a transferee of a rental house which has met 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 a provision on obligatory succession under law. Therefore, in cases where a rental house has been transferred, the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the lease contract of a lessor in combination with the ownership of the house, and 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 a lessee by withdrawing from the lease relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523, Jan. 17, 2013). The fact that the Plaintiff has an opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the Defendant’s co-ownership of the building of this case, which was pending on May 2, 2016.