Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Priority denied where a leasehold was assigned to recover a deposit
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2024Da268508 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 임대차보증금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the main purpose of a leasehold assignment was not to use and profit from the house but to be protected as a lessee with priority and to recover from the person succeeding to the landlord's position the deposit the assignee had paid to the assignor, and the assignee was already the owner whose household registration represented possession as owner, did the assignee obtain priority under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act?
Holding
No. The Supreme Court held that where the main purpose of the assignment was not to use and profit from the house but to be protected as a lessee with priority and to recover from the person succeeding to the landlord's position the deposit the assignee had paid to the assignor, the priority the Act confers cannot be given to that lessee. Household registration satisfies Article 3(1) only where what it represents is possession mediated by the leasehold, to a degree that a third party can recognise, and registration and a move made when the assignee was already the owner represent possession as owner only.
Points at issue, verbatim
병이 임차권 양도양수계약을 체결한 주된 목적이 대항력 있는 임차인으로 보호받아 임대인 지위를 승계하는 사람으로부터 갑에게 지급하였던 임대차보증금 상당액을 회수하려는 것으로 보이고, 주택의 소유자였던 병의 주민등록에 의하여 표상되는 점유관계가 임차권을 매개로 하는 점유임을 제3자가 인식할 수 있는 정도라고 보기도 어려운데도, 병이 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에 의한 대항력을 취득하였다고 본 원심판결에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
the principal purpose of C's entering into the leasehold transfer agreement appears to have been to be protected as a lessee with the effect against third parties and thereby recover an amount equivalent to the lease deposit that had been paid to A from the person succeeding to the status of lessor, and it is also difficult to regard the possession, as represented by the resident registration of C who was the owner of the housing unit, as possession mediated through a leasehold to a degree that a third party could recognize, and yet the judgment of the court below was in error, including misapprehension of legal principles, in holding that C had acquired the effect against third parties under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
단순히 형식적으로 주민등록이 되어 있다는 것만으로는 부족하고, 주민등록에 의하여 표상되는 점유관계가 임차권을 매개로 하는 점유임을 제3자가 인식할 수 있는 정도는 되어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
it is not sufficient that a resident registration exists merely in a formal sense; the possession as represented by the resident registration must be possession mediated through a leasehold to a degree that a third party could recognize
Factors
- 임대차계약의 주된 목적이 주택을 사용·수익하려는 것이 아니고 대항력 있는 임차인으로 보호받아 후순위권리자 기타 채권자보다 우선하여 채권을 회수하려는 것인 경우
- 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 ‘주민등록’이 대항력의 요건을 충족시킬 수 있는 공시방법이 되기 위한 요건
- 병이 임차권 양도양수계약을 체결한 주된 목적이 대항력 있는 임차인으로 보호받아 임대인 지위를 승계하는 사람으로부터 갑에게 지급하였던 임대차보증금 상당액을 회수하려는 것으로 보이고
- 주택의 소유자였던 병의 주민등록에 의하여 표상되는 점유관계가 임차권을 매개로 하는 점유임을 제3자가 인식할 수 있는 정도라고 보기도 어려운데도
Unofficial English translation
• Where the principal purpose of a lease agreement is not to use and take profits from a housing unit but to be protected as a lessee with the effect against third parties and thereby recover a claim in priority over subsequent-ranking right holders and other creditors
• Requirements for the 'resident registration' provided in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act to serve as a method of public notice that can satisfy the requirements for the effect against third parties
• the principal purpose of C's entering into the leasehold transfer agreement appears to have been to be protected as a lessee with the effect against third parties and thereby recover an amount equivalent to the lease deposit that had been paid to A from the person succeeding to the status of lessor, and
• it is also difficult to regard the possession, as represented by the resident registration of C who was the owner of the housing unit, as possession mediated through a leasehold to a degree that a third party could recognize, and yet
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2001. 5. 8. 선고 2001다14733 판결, 대법원 2003. 7. 22. 선고 2003다21445 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14733 decided May 8, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da21445 decided July 22, 2003, etc.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2001. 5. 8. 선고 2001다14733 판결(공2001하, 1362), 대법원 2003. 7. 22. 선고 2003다21445 판결(공2003하, 1777) / [2] 대법원 1999. 4. 23. 선고 98다32939 판결(공1999상, 993), 대법원 2000. 2. 11. 선고 99다59306 판결(공2000상, 688)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What evidence shows that the main purpose of a leasehold assignment was to recover the deposit rather than to use and profit from the house?
The retrial judgment after remand will show how the purpose and the recognisability of the registration are assessed on the record. Any amendment to Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, or a later decision relaxing the requirement that a third party recognise possession through the leasehold, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The source states general requirements for enforceability and residence registration and applies them to the assignee, allowing emphasis on either requirements or case application.
병이 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에 의한 대항력을 취득하였다고 본 원심판결에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What evidence shows that the main purpose of a leasehold assignment was to recover the deposit rather than to use and profit from the house?” vs Independent “What additional publicity would allow third parties to recognize a tenancy when the resident was previously the homeowner?”
The primary reading asks how to prove the deposit-recovery purpose, while the independent reading asks what additional publicity would disclose a former owner's tenancy.
병이 임차권 양도양수계약을 체결한 주된 목적이 대항력 있는 임차인으로 보호받아 임대인 지위를 승계하는 사람으로부터 갑에게 지급하였던 임대차보증금 상당액을 회수하려는 것으로 보이고, 주택의 소유자였던 병의 주민등록에 의하여 표상되는 점유관계가 임차권을 매개로 하는 점유임을 제3자가 인식할 수 있는 정도라고 보기도 어려운데도, 병이 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에 의한 대항력을 취득하였다고 본 원심판결에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례Raw 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 Uijeongbu District Court, in its judgment of 12 July 2024 (2023Na220630), held that Non-party A's leasehold had acquired priority before Non-party C's registration of an ownership claim was made, and that the plaintiff B, having taken an assignment of that leasehold from Non-party A, then met the requirements of Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. It therefore held that the defendant D, who had acquired ownership of the house and succeeded to the landlord's position, was obliged to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff B.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this could not be accepted. When the plaintiff B contracted to take the assignment, the plaintiff was already the owner of the house and owed repayment of the deposit to Non-party A irrespective of that assignment, and the plaintiff took the leasehold in order to secure a deposit claim with priority against the senior registration of an ownership claim. The household registration and the move, made when the plaintiff was already the owner, represented possession as owner only, so the judgment below misstated the law on priority under Article 3(1) and was reversed and remanded for retrial.
Distinguishing conditions
- A leasehold assignment whose main purpose was for the assignee to use and profit from the house as a lessee.
- A case in which what the household registration represents is possession mediated by the leasehold, to a degree that a third party can recognise, so that the publicity requirement of Article 3(1) is met.
Record verification notes
Set the dates on the file against each other: the plaintiff acquired ownership by paying the sale price in the compulsory auction on 3 March 2017 and registered it on 7 March 2017, contracted the assignment on 31 March 2018 and filed the household registration and moved on 2 April 2018, since the Court relied on the plaintiff already being the owner at the later steps. Then gather what shows the plaintiff's aim in taking the assignment, in light of the senior registration of an ownership claim that threatened the plaintiff's own registration, and ask whether a third party reading the household registration could see possession through the leasehold rather than possession as owner.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 임대차계약의 주된 목적이 주택을 사용·수익하려는 것이 아니고 대항력 있는 임차인으로 보호받아 후순위권리자 기타 채권자보다 우선하여 채권을 회수하려는 것인 경우, 주택임대차보호법상의 대항력이 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 ‘주민등록’이 대항력의 요건을 충족시킬 수 있는 공시방법이 되기 위한 요건 [3] 갑이 주택을 임차하여 주민등록을 마친 후 임대차계약서에 확정일자를 받았고, 을은 위 주택에 관하여 매매예약을 원인으로 한 소유권이전청구권가등기를 마쳤으며, 그 후 위 주택에 대한 강제경매절차에서 소유권을 취득한 병이 갑과 임차권 양도양수계약을 체결한 후 전입신고를 마치고 위 주택으로 이사하였고, 을은 위 주택에 관하여 소유권이전청구권가등기에 기한 본등기를 마친 다음 정에게 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었는데, 병이 정을 상대로 임대차보증금 반환을 구한 사안에서, 병이 임차권 양도양수계약을 체결한 주된 목적이 대항력 있는 임차인으로 보호받아 임대인 지위를 승계하는 사람으로부터 갑에게 지급하였던 임대차보증금 상당액을 회수하려는 것으로 보이고, 주택의 소유자였던 병의 주민등록에 의하여 표상되는 점유관계가 임차권을 매개로 하는 점유임을 제3자가 인식할 수 있는 정도라고 보기도 어려운데도, 병이 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에 의한 대항력을 취득하였다고 본 원심판결에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where the principal purpose of a lease agreement is not to use and take profits from a housing unit but to be protected as a lessee with the effect against third parties and thereby recover a claim in priority over subsequent-ranking right holders and other creditors, whether the effect against third parties under the Housing Lease Protection Act may be acquired (negative) [2] Requirements for the 'resident registration' provided in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act to serve as a method of public notice that can satisfy the requirements for the effect against third parties [3] In a case where A leased a housing unit and completed resident registration and obtained a certified date on the lease agreement, B completed a provisional registration of a claim for transfer of ownership based on a sales precontract with respect to the housing unit, and C, who acquired ownership over the housing unit in a compulsory auction procedure thereafter, entered into a leasehold transfer agreement with A, completed a report of change of residence, and moved into the housing unit, while B completed a final registration based on the provisional registration of the claim for transfer of ownership with respect to the housing unit and thereafter completed a registration of transfer of ownership based on a sale in favor of D, and C sought the return of the lease deposit from D, it was held that the judgment of the court below was in error, including misapprehension of legal principles, in holding that C had acquired the effect against third parties under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, notwithstanding that the principal purpose of C's entering into the leasehold transfer agreement appears to have been to be protected as a lessee with the effect against third parties and thereby recover an amount equivalent to the lease deposit that had been paid to A from the person succeeding to the status of lessor, and it is also difficult to regard the possession, as represented by the resident registration of C who was the owner of the housing unit, as possession mediated through a leasehold to a degree that a third party could recognize
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 주택임대차보호법 제1조, 제3조 제1항, 제3조의2 제2항 / [2] 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항 / [3] 주택임대차보호법 제1조, 제3조 제1항, 제3조의2 제2항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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