beta
Text
The claim of this case is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 24, 2017, the Plaintiff leased Gwangju City C and D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from E with the lease deposit of KRW 110 million and the lease period from October 20, 2017 to October 19, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The Plaintiff is residing in the instant real estate after completing the move-in report at that time.
B. On December 15, 2017, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from E and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 4, 2018. On August 28, 2019, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to F and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the following day.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant lease agreement was terminated on or around December 2018 due to the provisional seizure, seizure, etc. established on the instant real estate. As such, the Defendant is obliged to refund KRW 110 million deposit at the same time as the instant real estate was delivered.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the termination of the instant lease agreement on or around December 2018, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge such termination.
Therefore, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have been terminated on October 19, 2019 due to the expiration of the period of validity or to have been implicitly renewed at that time. As seen earlier, the fact that the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to F on August 29, 2019, which was earlier. In the event that a rental house was transferred pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the lease contract of the lessor in combination with the ownership of the house, and as a result, the transferee is exempted from the obligation to return the lease deposit, and the transferor is exempted from the obligation to return the lease deposit to the lessee by withdrawing from the lease relationship. Therefore, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da49523 Decided January 17, 2013.