Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Inheritance of the lessor's status, indivisible deposit debt, and qualified acceptance
Supreme Court, Jan. 28, 2021, 2015Da59801 (judgment)
Case name: 임대차보증금반환[임차인이 임대인의 지위를 공동상속한 상속인들에 대하여 임차보증금의 반환을 구한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a person who acquires ownership of a leased building by inheritance fall within the transferee of the leased building in Article 3(2) of the Shop Building Lease Protection Act, is the deposit repayment obligation of co-heirs who jointly succeeded to the lessor's status an indivisible obligation, and what do gross negligence under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act and intentional omission from the property list under Article 1026(iii) mean?
Holding
A person who acquires ownership of a leased building by inheritance is a transferee within Article 3(2), because the provision applies whether the change of ownership comes from a juridical act or a provision of law, and the deposit repayment obligation of co-heirs who jointly succeeded to the lessor's status is by its nature an indivisible obligation. Gross negligence under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act means failing to notice what a little care would have revealed, the heir bears the burden of proving its absence within the period in Article 1019(1), and intentional omission from the property list under Article 1026(iii) requires the intent to harm succession creditors when making a qualified acceptance.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
소유권 변동의 원인이 매매 등 법률행위든 상속·경매 등 법률의 규정이든 상관없이 이 규정이 적용되므로, 상속에 따라 임차건물의 소유권을 취득한 자도 위 조항에서 말하는 임차건물의 양수인에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
Since this provision applies irrespective of whether the cause of the change in ownership is a juristic act such as a sale or a provision of law such as inheritance or auction, a person who has acquired ownership of the leased building by inheritance also falls under the term 'transferee of the leased building' as used in the above Article.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 2에 대한 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다. 원고의 피고 1에 대한 상고와 피고 2의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below in which the plaintiff lost against Defendant 2 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court. The plaintiff's final appeal against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's final appeal are both dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 ‘고의로 재산목록에 기입하지 아니한 때’란 한정승인을 할 때 상속재산을 은닉하여 상속채권자를 해할 의사로써 상속재산을 재산목록에 기입하지 않는 것을 뜻한다
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'a case where one intentionally failed to enter the estate in the inventory' means that, at the time of filing a petition for limited acceptance, one fails to enter the inherited estate in the inventory with the intent to conceal the inherited estate and thereby harm the inherited creditors
Factors
- 소유권 변동의 원인이 매매 등 법률행위든 상속·경매 등 법률의 규정이든 상관없이 이 규정이 적용되므로
- 임대인 지위를 공동으로 승계한 공동임대인들의 임차보증금 반환채무는 성질상 불가분채무에 해당한다
- 상속인이 조금만 주의를 기울였다면 상속채무가 상속재산을 초과한다는 사실을 알 수 있었음에도 이를 게을리함으로써 그러한 사실을 알지 못한 것을 뜻하고
- 한정승인을 할 때 상속재산을 은닉하여 상속채권자를 해할 의사로써 상속재산을 재산목록에 기입하지 않는 것을 뜻한다
Unofficial English translation
• Since this provision applies irrespective of whether the cause of the change in ownership is a juristic act such as a sale or a provision of law such as inheritance or auction,
• the obligation of co-lessors, who have jointly succeeded to the status of the lessor, to return the lease deposit constitutes, by its nature, an indivisible obligation
• it means that, although the heir could have known that the inherited debts exceed the inherited estate had the heir exercised even a modicum of care, the heir neglected to do so and consequently remained unaware of such fact, and
• it means that, at the time of filing a petition for limited acceptance, one fails to enter the inherited estate in the inventory with the intent to conceal the inherited estate and thereby harm the inherited creditors
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2010. 6. 10. 선고 2010다7904 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7904 decided June 10, 2010
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1967. 4. 25. 선고 67다328 판결, 대법원 1993. 11. 23. 선고 93다4083 판결(공1994상, 168), 대법원 2017. 3. 22. 선고 2016다218874 판결(공2017상, 841), 대법원 2017. 5. 30. 선고 2017다205073 판결(공2017하, 1369) / [2] 대법원 2010. 6. 10. 선고 2010다7904 판결(공2010하, 1360) / [3] 대법원 2010. 4. 29. 선고 2009다84936 판결(공2010상, 987)
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
상속인이 상속채무가 상속재산을 초과하는 사실을 중대한 과실 없이 민법 제1019조 제1항의 기간 내에 알지 못하였다는 점에 대한 증명책임은 상속인에게 있다
Unofficial English translation
The burden of proof that the heir was unaware, without gross negligence, of the fact that the inherited debts exceed the inherited estate within the period under Article 1019 (1) of the Civil Act lies with the heir
Open question and revisit condition
Where one of several co-heirs paid the whole deposit to the tenant, may that heir claim contribution from the others, and on what shares?
The remand judgment of the Jeonju District Court on the plaintiff's claim against Defendant 2 will show how the indivisible obligation is enforced against a single co-heir. Any amendment to Article 3(2) of the Shop Building Lease Protection Act or to Articles 1019 and 1026 of the Civil Act would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where one of several co-heirs paid the whole deposit to the tenant, may that heir claim contribution from the others, and on what shares?” vs Independent “What specific inquiries into inherited assets and debts would suffice to establish an heir's absence of gross negligence?”
The primary asks whether a co-heir who paid the whole deposit can claim contribution from others and on what shares, while the independent reading asks what specific inquiries into inherited assets and debts would show no gross negligence.
소유권 변동의 원인이 매매 등 법률행위든 상속·경매 등 법률의 규정이든 상관없이 이 규정이 적용되므로, 상속에 따라 임차건물의 소유권을 취득한 자도 위 조항에서 말하는 임차건물의 양수인에 해당한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Jeonju District Court, in its judgment of 3 September 2015 (2014Na6537), held that the building's sale in the auction at the request of the first-ranking mortgagee extinguished the plaintiff's right of lease, and that the heirs of Outside 2, with Outside 3 and Outside 4, bore the deposit repayment obligation divided in accordance with each one's inheritance share. It upheld Defendant 1's qualified acceptance report of 5 September 2011 and held that Defendant 2 inherited the repayment obligation.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misunderstood the law on the repayment obligation of heirs who jointly succeeded to the lessor's status. The defendants, who acquired ownership by inheritance on 14 February 2009 with the ownership registration completed on 31 March 2010, had to pay the plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and default interest jointly with Outside 3 and Outside 4 unless special circumstances existed, so dividing the obligation by inheritance shares was unlawful. It found no error on Defendant 1's qualified acceptance or on Defendant 2's inheritance, dismissed those two appeals, and remanded only the part in which the plaintiff lost against Defendant 2.
Distinguishing conditions
- A tenant who had not yet acquired power to assert the lease against third parties when the ownership changed, since the Court read Article 3(2) as governing the content of that power.
- A single heir who alone succeeded to the lessor's status, so that there are no co-landlords and no indivisible obligation arises.
- An heir who learned within the three-month period that the succession debts exceeded the estate, or who left assets off the list without the intent to harm succession creditors.
Record verification notes
Fix the tenant's business registration date and the deposit of KRW 50,000,000 against the standard deposit, since opposing power was acquired from the day after the registration application. Then identify who jointly succeeded to the lessor's status and in what shares. For the qualified acceptance, fix the date the heir learned that the succession had opened and gather what shows due care or gross negligence in checking the estate against the debts.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 상속에 따라 임차건물의 소유권을 취득한 자가 상가건물 임대차보호법 제3조 제2항에서 정한 ‘임차건물의 양수인’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 임대인 지위를 공동으로 승계한 공동임대인들의 임차보증금 반환채무가 불가분채무인지 여부(적극) [2] 민법 제1019조 제3항에서 말하는 ‘상속채무가 상속재산을 초과하는 사실을 중대한 과실로 알지 못한 경우’의 의미 및 이에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=상속인) [3] 민법 제1026조 제3호에서 정한 ‘고의로 재산목록에 기입하지 아니한 때’의 의미
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a person who has acquired ownership of the leased building by inheritance falls under the term 'transferee of the leased building' as used in Article 3 (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (affirmative), and whether the obligation of co-lessors, who have jointly succeeded to the status of the lessor, to return the lease deposit is an indivisible obligation (affirmative) [2] The meaning of 'a case where, owing to gross negligence, one was unaware that the inherited debts exceed the inherited estate' as used in Article 1019 (3) of the Civil Act, and the allocation of the burden of proof on this matter (=the heir) [3] The meaning of 'a case where one intentionally failed to enter the estate in the inventory' as provided in Article 1026 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 상가건물 임대차보호법 제3조는 ‘대항력 등’이라는 표제로 제1항에서 대항력의 요건을 정하고, 제2항에서 "임차건물의 양수인(그 밖에 임대할 권리를 승계한 자를 포함한다)은 임대인의 지위를 승계한 것으로 본다."라고 정하고 있다. 이 조항은 임차인이 취득하는 대항력의 내용을 정한 것으로, 상가건물의 임차인이 제3자에 대한 대항력을 취득한 다음 임차건물의 양도 등으로 소유자가 변동된 경우에는 양수인 등 새로운 소유자(이하 ‘양수인’이라 한다)가 임대인의 지위를 당연히 승계한다는 의미이다. 소유권 변동의 원인이 매매 등 법률행위든 상속·경매 등 법률의 규정이든 상관없이 이 규정이 적용되므로, 상속에 따라 임차건물의 소유권을 취득한 자도 위 조항에서 말하는 임차건물의 양수인에 해당한다. 임대인 지위를 공동으로 승계한 공동임대인들의 임차보증금 반환채무는 성질상 불가분채무에 해당한다. [2] 민법 제1019조 제3항에서 말하는 ‘상속채무가 상속재산을 초과하는 사실을 중대한 과실로 알지 못한다.’ 함은 상속인이 조금만 주의를 기울였다면 상속채무가 상속재산을 초과한다는 사실을 알 수 있었음에도 이를 게을리함으로써 그러한 사실을 알지 못한 것을 뜻하고, 상속인이 상속채무가 상속재산을 초과하는 사실을 중대한 과실 없이 민법 제1019조 제1항의 기간 내에 알지 못하였다는 점에 대한 증명책임은 상속인에게 있다. [3] 민법 제1026조 제3호는 상속인이 한정승인이나 포기를 한 후에 상속재산을 은닉하거나 부정소비하거나 고의로 재산목록에 기입하지 않은 때에는 상속인이 단순승인을 한 것으로 본다고 규정하고 있는데, 여기서 ‘고의로 재산목록에 기입하지 아니한 때’란 한정승인을 할 때 상속재산을 은닉하여 상속채권자를 해할 의사로써 상속재산을 재산목록에 기입하지 않는 것을 뜻한다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 2에 대한 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다. 원고의 피고 1에 대한 상고와 피고 2의 상고를 모두 기각한다. 피고 1에 대한 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below in which the plaintiff lost against Defendant 2 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court. The plaintiff's final appeal against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's final appeal are both dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal as to Defendant 1.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상가건물 임대차보호법 제3조 제2항, 민법 제411조 [2] 민법 제1019조 제3항, 민사소송법 제288조 [3] 민법 제1026조 제3호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger