The case reversing the judgment of the court below rejecting the lessee's claim for return of the lease deposit where a lease contract with the lessee as the lessee is concluded for the purpose of securing the payment of the loan deposit to the lessee.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected the lessee's claim for return of the lease deposit where a lease contract with the lessee as the lessee is concluded for the purpose of securing the payment of the loan deposit to the lessee.

Article 618 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na40075 delivered on December 22, 1995

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the following facts by comprehensively taking account of the evidence cited in its judgment.

Around August 193, Nonparty 1 entered into a lease agreement with the above 0-party 2 with the above 10-party 2 with the above 10-party 1's right to the above 10-party 1's tenant loan and the above 10-party 2's tenant loan with the above 0-party 1's tenant loan and the above 10-party 2's tenant loan with the above 10-party 9's tenant loan with the above 9's tenant loan with the above 10-party 2's tenant loan with the above 10-party 1's tenant loan with the above 9's tenant loan with the above 10-party 2's tenant loan with the above 9's tenant loan with the above 10-party 2's tenant loan with the above 9's tenant loan with the above 10-party 2's tenant loan with the above 9's tenant loan with the above 10-party 30's tenant loan.

Based on the above facts, the court below held that, upon the plaintiff's claim for the return of the lease deposit, the plaintiff was merely a lessee under the above non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's name on the right to lease in the above store that the above non-party 2 would be transferred from the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 2 for the guarantee of payment of the above amount when the contract for the transfer of the right to lease lease was concluded between the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2, and only the above non-party 2 could be transferred from the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 for the guarantee of payment of the above amount. However, even if the plaintiff is stated on the above lease contract, it is merely a guarantee of the plaintiff's claim against the above non-party 2 and it cannot be interpreted that the defendant should not be interpreted that he transferred the lease deposit to him at the time of the termination of the lease contract with the actual tenant, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant paid the plaintiff's lease deposit to the defendant around 19.

2. However, even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, it is clear that the plaintiff is not the actual lessee regardless of the above lease agreement. However, the above non-party 1 decided to transfer the lease right to the above non-party 2 around August 30, 1993 to 70,000 won, and it was delivered in advance around September 5, 1993 and received both cash and household check around the same month and around September 21, 193. Thus, the lease right of this case was transferred to the above non-party 2, and the defendant did not renew the above lease contract with the above non-party 1, the non-party 2 as its partner, and even if the plaintiff et al. concealed internal circumstances, the court below decided that the lease right of this case was not a new lease contract with the non-party 1, the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 was not a lessee's obligation to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff and the defendant was not a party to whom the lease contract was terminated.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)