If a house lessee is a corporation, whether the house transferee naturally succeeds to the status of the lessor (negative)

According to the provisions of Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, a lessee of a house has opposing power against a third party by moving into a building and making a resident registration, and in cases where a building for lease is transferred after having opposing power, a transferee shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of a lessor. In such cases, the obligation to return a deposit for lease shall be transferred to a transferee who succeeds to the status of a lessor and the transferor's obligation is extinguished. However, in cases where a house is leased to a corporation, the corporation cannot satisfy the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, even if a lessor transfers the house, the transferee does not naturally succeed to the status of a lessor under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and therefore, the obligation to return the deposit for lease to a lessor shall not be extinguished unless there are special circumstances such as a special agreement between the parties making the lessor exempt the obligation

Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Da7236 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2469 Delivered on March 10, 1987)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other by the bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt Bank

Seoul District Court Decision 2002Na7922 delivered on November 28, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the fact that the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case to the Gyeonggi Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Bankruptcy") on October 14, 1995 based on the employment evidence, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged.

2. According to the provisions of Article 3(1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, a lessee of a house has opposing power against a third party by moving into a building and making a resident registration. If a building for lease is transferred after having the opposing power, the transferee shall be deemed to succeed to the status of the lessor. In this case, the obligation to return the deposit for lease is transferred to the transferee who succeeds to the status of the lessor and the transferor’s obligation is extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu114, Mar. 10, 1987). However, in a case where a house is leased to a corporation, the corporation cannot obtain a resident registration which is one of the requisite requirements under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da7236, Jul. 11, 1997). Even if a lessor transfers the said house, the transferee does not naturally succeed to the status of the lessor under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and therefore, barring any special agreement between the parties making the repayment of the deposit for lease.

With respect to this case, the Health Unit and the Bankrupt who is a lessee cannot satisfy the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act as a juristic person, and therefore, even if Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 acquired the instant rental house from Nonparty 1, they do not succeed to the status of lessor as a matter of course pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act, and there is no evidence to be found in the record that Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 were exempted from the obligation to return the lease deposit to Nonparty 1 due to the agreement between the parties concerned, and there is still a balance between Nonparty 1’s obligation to return the lease deposit and the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability obligations. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is justifiable to determine that the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability is not extinguished due to the transfer of the instant rental house. Therefore, this part of the grounds for

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)