Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Exemption under a jeonse loan guarantee clause after an unnotified move-out
Supreme Court, Sept. 26, 2025, 2024Da308970 (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: 보험금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a tenant who had registered at the leased house ended the lease by agreement with the landlord, took the deposit back before the term expired and moved out without telling the guarantee company, should item (i) of Article 22 of the guarantee terms have been read as exempting the guarantee company, and what does 'legally incompatible' mean in Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act?
Holding
Yes. Item (i) of Article 22 of the guarantee terms exempts the guarantee company where the tenant, without telling it, moved out or transferred residence and thereby lost the right to resist eviction and the priority right, so that recovery of the deposit was hindered; the words 'during the jeonse contract period' are an illustration of that loss, not a limit excluding a move-out after an agreed termination of the lease. Since Defendant 2 moved out without notice, the company was likely exempt, and the court below erred in law in holding otherwise. The Court also held, of its own motion, that two claims are legally incompatible under Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act where they cannot both be granted and the reasoning on one is inextricably combined with the reasoning on the other; the claim against Defendant 2 was not incompatible with the claims against the other defendants, so it became final separately when the appeal period expired on 16 February 2022.
Points at issue, verbatim
위 약관 조항은 임차인이 보증공사에 알리지 않은 채 거주를 이전하는 등으로 대항력과 우선변제권을 상실하여 보증공사가 임대차보증금을 회수하는 데 지장이 초래된 경우에 공사를 면책하기 위한 규정이라고 해석함이 타당하므로 보증공사가 위 약관 조항에 따라 면책되었다고 볼 여지가 큰데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
Since it is proper to construe the aforesaid terms and conditions as a provision intended to exempt the Corporation where the tenant loses the effect against third parties and the right to preferential payment by relocating his or her residence, etc. without notifying the guarantee corporation, thereby causing a hindrance to the guarantee corporation's recovery of the lease deposit, a case where it was held that, notwithstanding that there was considerable room for regarding the guarantee corporation as exempted under the aforesaid terms and conditions, the determination of the court below, which held otherwise, was in error as a misapprehension of legal principles
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기한다. 피고 주택도시보증공사, △△△보험 주식회사에 대한 부분을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 피고 2에 대한 소송은 제1심판결에 대한 항소기간 만료일인 2022. 2. 16.이 지남으로써 종료되었다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed. The case against defendants Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation and △△△ Insurance Co., Ltd. is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The lawsuit against Defendant 2 was terminated upon the passage of February 16, 2022, the date of expiration of the appeal period with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
민사소송법 제70조 제1항에 정하는 ‘법률상 양립할 수 없다.’는 것은, 동일한 사실관계에 대한 법률적인 평가를 달리하여 두 청구 중 어느 한쪽에 대한 법률효과가 인정되면 다른 쪽에 대한 법률효과가 부정됨으로써 두 청구가 모두 인용될 수는 없는 관계에 있는 경우나
Unofficial English translation
The phrase 'cannot be reconciled in law' as provided in Article 70 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act means a case where, upon differing legal evaluations of the same facts, if the legal effect of one of the two claims is recognized, the legal effect of the other is denied, such that the two claims stand in a relationship in which both cannot be granted, or
Factors
- 당사자가 표시한 문언에 의하여 객관적인 의미가 명확하게 드러나지 않는 경우
- ‘특약주채무자가 전세목적물 주소지에 입주하여 주민등록을 마친 후 전세계약 기간 중 보증회사에 고지를 하지 않고 거주를 이전하거나 주민등록을 이전하는 등에 의하여 대항력과 우선변제권을 상실하였을 때’
- 임대차기간 만료 전 임대차보증금을 반환받고 전출한 후 대출금을 상환하지 않자
- 보증공사가 임대차보증금을 회수하는 데 지장이 초래된 경우에 공사를 면책하기 위한 규정이라고 해석함이 타당하므로
- 민사소송법 제70조 제1항에서 정한 예비적·선택적 공동소송의 요건인 ‘법률상 양립할 수 없다.’는 것의 의미
Unofficial English translation
• Where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the wording indicated by the parties
• 'when the specially stipulated principal debtor, after moving into the address of the jeonse-purpose property and completing the household registration, loses the effect against third parties and the right to preferential payment by relocating his or her residence or transferring his or her household registration, etc. during the jeonse contract period without notifying the guarantee corporation'
• received the return of the lease deposit and moved out before the expiration of the lease period and failed to repay the loan
• since it is proper to construe it as a provision intended to exempt the Corporation where a hindrance is caused to the guarantee corporation's recovery of the lease deposit
• The meaning of 'cannot be reconciled in law,' which is a requirement for alternative and selective co-litigation as provided in Article 70 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2001. 1. 19. 선고 2000다33607 판결(공2001상, 507)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2000Da33607 decided January 19, 2001 (Gong 2001 Sang, 507)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2001. 1. 19. 선고 2000다33607 판결(공2001상, 507), 대법원 2024. 2. 15. 선고 2019다272404 판결(공2024상, 518) / [3] 대법원 2007. 6. 26. 자 2007마515 결정(공2007하, 1133), 대법원 2012. 9. 27. 선고 2011다76747 판결(공2012하, 1734)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the tenant had already taken the deposit back from the landlord before moving out, how is it shown that the guarantee company's recovery of the deposit was hindered?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on whether the unnotified move-out in fact hindered the guarantee company's recovery of the deposit will show how item (i) of Article 22 of the guarantee terms is applied. Any amendment to that clause, or to Article 3(1) and Article 3-2(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, or to Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 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 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 3 (disposition), axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 3 (Disposition): Primary “Reversed and remanded” vs Independent “Partly reversed and remanded”
The order first reverses the judgment but remands only the guarantor and insurer claims while declaring the borrower litigation ended, allowing emphasis on either reversal and remand generally or their limited scope.
원심판결을 파기한다. 피고 주택도시보증공사, △△△보험 주식회사에 대한 부분을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 피고 2에 대한 소송은 제1심판결에 대한 항소기간 만료일인 2022. 2. 16.이 지남으로써 종료되었다.Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The issues state the exemption clause's operative conditions and the meaning of legal incompatibility alongside their concrete application, allowing classification as either a statement of requirements or application to the facts.
보증공사가 위 약관 조항에 따라 면책되었다고 볼 여지가 큰데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the tenant had already taken the deposit back from the landlord before moving out, how is it shown that the guarantee company's recovery of the deposit was hindered?” vs Independent “If the guarantor is ultimately held exempt on remand, must the insurer pay under the separate insurance contract?”
The primary reading asks how impaired deposit recovery is proved, while the independent reading asks whether the insurer must pay if the guarantor is exempt.
위 약관 조항은 임차인이 보증공사에 알리지 않은 채 거주를 이전하는 등으로 대항력과 우선변제권을 상실하여 보증공사가 임대차보증금을 회수하는 데 지장이 초래된 경우에 공사를 면책하기 위한 규정이라고 해석함이 타당하므로 보증공사가 위 약관 조항에 따라 면책되었다고 볼 여지가 큰데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 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 Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 8 October 2024 (2024Na12704), held that Defendant 2 had not lost the right to resist eviction or the priority right under the Housing Lease Protection Act while the lease subsisted, because Defendant 2 ended the lease by agreement with the landlord and received the deposit of KRW 115,000,000 at once. It therefore held that the guarantee company could not escape liability under item (i) of Article 22 of the guarantee terms. It also treated the claim against Defendant 2 as having gone up to the appellate instance, on the view that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 both stood as primary defendants.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court read item (i) of Article 22 of the guarantee terms as exempting the guarantee company where the tenant, without notifying it, moved out or transferred residence and thereby lost the right to resist eviction and the priority right, hindering recovery of the deposit; the words 'during the jeonse contract period' merely illustrate that loss, and Defendant 2 had also signed a written undertaking accepting liability for any loss caused by losing that right. Because Defendant 2 moved out without notice, the company was likely exempt, so the court below misapprehended the law on construing the exemption clause. Acting of its own motion, the Court held that the claim against Defendant 2 had become separately final on 16 February 2022 and that the appellate court misapprehended the scope of appellate review; it reversed the whole judgment, remanded the parts against the guarantee company and Defendant 3 to the Seoul Central District Court, and declared the litigation against Defendant 2 at an end.
Distinguishing conditions
- A tenant who notified the guarantee company before moving out or transferring residence, so that recovery of the deposit was not obstructed.
- A tenant who kept the right to resist eviction and the priority right, so that the guarantee company could still exercise the priority right it had succeeded to.
- A first-instance judgment against one defendant against which a party did appeal within the appeal period, so that it was not separately final, or claims that are legally incompatible, such as the claims against Defendant 3 and the guarantee company here.
Record verification notes
Set item (i) of Article 22 of the guarantee terms against the security the guarantee company actually held: it had taken an assignment of Defendant 2's deposit-return claim and succeeded to the priority right, so ask whether the tenant's departure in fact took that security away, and look for the written undertaking the tenant signed. Then rebuild the procedural map defendant by defendant, checking who appealed what by the appeal period ending 16 February 2022, and which claims are legally incompatible with which.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 당사자가 표시한 문언에 의하여 객관적인 의미가 명확하게 드러나지 않는 경우, 법률행위의 해석 방법 [2] 갑 은행이 을에게 전세금안심대출을 실행하면서 담보로 교부받은 주택도시보증공사 발행 대출보증서의 보증약관에는 ‘특약주채무자가 전세목적물 주소지에 입주하여 주민등록을 마친 후 전세계약 기간 중 보증회사에 고지를 하지 않고 거주를 이전하거나 주민등록을 이전하는 등에 의하여 대항력과 우선변제권을 상실하였을 때’를 면책사유로 정한 조항이 있는데, 위 보증에 따른 구상금채무를 담보하기 위하여 임대차보증금 반환채권을 보증공사에 양도한 을이 임차주택을 인도받아 전입신고를 마치고 거주하다가 임대차기간 만료 전 임대차보증금을 반환받고 전출한 후 대출금을 상환하지 않자, 갑 은행이 보증공사에 보증채무의 이행을 청구하였는데, 보증공사가 위 약관 조항에 따른 면책을 주장하면서 보증금 지급을 거절한 사안에서, 위 약관 조항은 임차인이 보증공사에 알리지 않은 채 거주를 이전하는 등으로 대항력과 우선변제권을 상실하여 보증공사가 임대차보증금을 회수하는 데 지장이 초래된 경우에 공사를 면책하기 위한 규정이라고 해석함이 타당하므로 보증공사가 위 약관 조항에 따라 면책되었다고 볼 여지가 큰데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례 [3] 민사소송법 제70조 제1항에서 정한 예비적·선택적 공동소송의 요건인 ‘법률상 양립할 수 없다.’는 것의 의미
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the wording indicated by the parties, the method of interpreting a juristic act [2] In a case where, when Bank A executed a jeonse deposit safety loan for B, the guarantee terms and conditions of the loan guarantee certificate issued by the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation and delivered as security provided, as a ground for exemption, a clause stipulating 'when the specially stipulated principal debtor, after moving into the address of the jeonse-purpose property and completing the household registration, loses the effect against third parties and the right to preferential payment by relocating his or her residence or transferring his or her household registration, etc. during the jeonse contract period without notifying the guarantee corporation,' and B, who had assigned the claim for return of the lease deposit to the guarantee corporation to secure the recourse debt arising under the aforesaid guarantee, took delivery of the leased dwelling, completed the report of change of residence, and resided therein, but received the return of the lease deposit and moved out before the expiration of the lease period and failed to repay the loan, whereupon Bank A demanded performance of the guarantee obligation from the guarantee corporation, but the guarantee corporation asserted exemption under the aforesaid terms and conditions and refused payment of the guaranteed amount, since it is proper to construe the aforesaid terms and conditions as a provision intended to exempt the Corporation where the tenant loses the effect against third parties and the right to preferential payment by relocating his or her residence, etc. without notifying the guarantee corporation, thereby causing a hindrance to the guarantee corporation's recovery of the lease deposit, a case where it was held that, notwithstanding that there was considerable room for regarding the guarantee corporation as exempted under the aforesaid terms and conditions, the determination of the court below, which held otherwise, was in error as a misapprehension of legal principles [3] The meaning of 'cannot be reconciled in law,' which is a requirement for alternative and selective co-litigation as provided in Article 70 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act
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 파기한다. 피고 주택도시보증공사, △△△보험 주식회사에 대한 부분을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 피고 2에 대한 소송은 제1심판결에 대한 항소기간 만료일인 2022. 2. 16.이 지남으로써 종료되었다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed. The case against defendants Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation and △△△ Insurance Co., Ltd. is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The lawsuit against Defendant 2 was terminated upon the passage of February 16, 2022, the date of expiration of the appeal period with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제105조 / [2] 민법 제105조, 제428조, 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항, 제3조의2 제2항, 주택도시기금법 제26조 제1항 제2호 / [3] 민사소송법 제70조 제1항
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