1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(4) As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant and the defendant, the court of first instance accepted most of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and all of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's defendant and the defendant's defendant were dismissed, and this court's trial scope is limited to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, since only the defendant appealeds against the defendant. The court of first instance decided 5 to 18 of the court of first instance as follows.

Since the Defendant cancelled the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant for the instant real estate after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Intervenor following the instant association, the Defendant asserts that the Intervenor is the assignee of the leased house under the Housing Lease Protection Act and is obligated to return the lease deposit by succeeding to the status of the lessor as the assignee of the leased house under the Housing Lease Protection Act. In light of the following, Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that “the assignee of the leased house (including any other person who succeeds to the right to lease) shall be deemed to succeed to the status of the lessor.” As a result, the assignee of the leased house 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 the registration of transfer of ownership under the invalid trust agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da265689, Dec. 27, 2018).