1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the second instance judgment of the court of first instance “, July 25, 2015” is “, July 25, 2012,” and (b) the seventh instance judgment less than 20, as stated in the following Paragraph 2; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the trial of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in the following Paragraph 3.

2. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the lease to which the Housing Lease Protection Act applies is limited to cases where a lease contract is concluded between a lessee and a housing owner. It also includes cases where a lease contract is concluded with a lessor who is not a housing owner but has the right to lawfully conclude a lease contract on a housing (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da45689, Jul. 26, 2012). Meanwhile, Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the transferee of a leased housing, the object of which meets the requirements for counterclaim as prescribed in Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of a lessor. Accordingly, in cases where a leased housing is transferred, the transferee succeeds to the rights and obligations of a lessor under a lease contract in combination with the ownership of a housing, and as a result, the transferee is exempt from the obligation to pay the deposit under the aforementioned legal doctrine by taking account of the following circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da4154, supra).