Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Registration as a leasing business operator and lawful ownership of rental housing
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2024Da326749 (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: 소유권이전등기말소등기청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a buyer purchases rental housing during its lease-obligation period to succeed the seller's status as a leasing business operator, must the buyer have completed registration under Article 6 of the former Rental Housing Act, house by house, to acquire ownership lawfully, and may the sale contract be held void where the buyer never meant to register or registration became definitively impossible?
Holding
Yes, and the point is answered for each house separately. Such a sale contract does not conflict with the mandatory Article 16 of the former Rental Housing Act and is valid, but the buyer acquires ownership of a rental house only when it has completed registration as a leasing business operator under Article 6 for that house, whether before or after the ownership transfer registration. If, however, the buyer never meant to register from the time of the contract, or registration for that house became definitively impossible as a matter of statutory interpretation, the sale contract may be void.
Points at issue, verbatim
구 임대주택법상 임대주택의 임대의무기간 중 매도인의 임대사업자 지위를 승계하여 임대사업을 하기 위하여 임대주택을 매수한 경우, 매수인이 임대주택의 소유권을 적법하게 취득하기 위해서는 그 임대주택에 관하여 같은 법 제6조에 따른 임대사업자 등록을 마친 ‘임대사업자’이어야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 여기서 등록된 임대사업자인지는 해당 임대주택별로 각각 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
In a case where a purchaser acquired rental housing during the rental obligation period of rental housing under the former Rental Housing Act in order to succeed to the seller's status as a rental business operator and conduct the rental business, whether the purchaser must be a 'rental business operator' who has completed registration as a rental business operator under Article 6 of the same Act with respect to the rental housing in order to lawfully acquire ownership of the rental housing (affirmative), and whether one is a registered rental business operator must be determined separately for each rental housing unit in question (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
매수인이 임대주택의 소유권을 적법하게 취득하기 위해서는 그 임대주택에 관하여 구 임대주택법 제6조에 따른 임대사업자 등록을 마친 ‘임대사업자’일 것이 요구된다고 보아야 하고, 여기에서 등록된 임대사업자인지 여부는 해당 임대주택별로 각각 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In order for the purchaser to lawfully acquire ownership of the rental housing, it must be regarded as required that the purchaser be a 'rental business operator' who has completed registration as a rental business operator under Article 6 of the former Rental Housing Act with respect to the rental housing, and whether one is a registered rental business operator must be determined separately for each rental housing unit in question.
Factors
- 매수인이 임대주택의 소유권을 적법하게 취득하기 위해서는 그 임대주택에 관하여 같은 법 제6조에 따른 임대사업자 등록을 마친 ‘임대사업자’이어야 하는지 여부(적극)
- 여기서 등록된 임대사업자인지는 해당 임대주택별로 각각 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
- 매수인이 임대주택에 관하여 임대사업자 등록을 할 의사를 가지지 아니하였거나 임대사업자 등록이 확정적으로 불가능하게 된 경우, 매매계약을 무효로 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• whether the purchaser must be a 'rental business operator' who has completed registration as a rental business operator under Article 6 of the same Act with respect to the rental housing in order to lawfully acquire ownership of the rental housing (affirmative)
• whether one is a registered rental business operator must be determined separately for each rental housing unit in question (affirmative)
• whether, in a case where the purchaser had no intention to register as a rental business operator with respect to the rental housing or where registration as a rental business operator has become definitively impossible, the sale and purchase contract may be regarded as null and void (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2024. 7. 11. 선고 2024다214396 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2024Da214396 decided July 11, 2024.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2024. 7. 11. 선고 2024다214396 판결(공2024하, 1279)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances, beyond the seller's refusal to cooperate, make a buyer's registration as a leasing business operator definitively impossible for a particular rental house?
A later Supreme Court decision applying or qualifying the rule cited from 11 July 2024 (2024Da214396) would require this entry to be read again, as would any amendment to Article 6 or Article 16 of the former Rental Housing Act as mirrored in the current Private Rental Housing Special Act or Public Housing Special Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What circumstances, beyond the seller's refusal to cooperate, make a buyer's registration as a leasing business operator definitively impossible for a particular rental house?” vs Independent “If registration were definitively impossible and the sale invalid, under what circumstances would good faith bar the seller from seeking cancellation of the ownership registrations?”
The primary reading asks what establishes definitive impossibility of registration, whereas the independent reading assumes invalidity and asks when good faith restricts the seller's cancellation claim.
구 임대주택법상 임대주택의 임대의무기간 중 매도인의 임대사업자 지위를 승계하여 임대사업을 하기 위하여 임대주택을 매수한 경우, 매수인이 임대주택의 소유권을 적법하게 취득하기 위해서는 그 임대주택에 관하여 같은 법 제6조에 따른 임대사업자 등록을 마친 ‘임대사업자’이어야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 여기서 등록된 임대사업자인지는 해당 임대주택별로 각각 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극)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 decision does not name the court below or its judgment number. On the reasons given there, that court held that Defendant 1 Company could register as a leasing business operator for the rental housing only by succeeding the plaintiff's status, and that the plaintiff flatly refused cooperation, so registration had become definitively impossible and the sale contract of 30 June 2017 was void. It nevertheless rejected the plaintiff's claim to cancel the ownership transfer registrations in the names of Defendants 1 and 2, because the fault for the failure to register lay with the plaintiff and a claim to voidness in those circumstances offends good faith.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held, on its own motion, that the finding of definitively impossible registration could not stand: the plaintiff, a local public corporation, is a leasing business operator regardless of formal registration, the registration condition for purchased rental housing requires only a contract to buy for letting, and Defendant 1 Company tried to register and asked the plaintiff for cooperation in December 2017. The contract was therefore valid and the court below erred in calling it void. Yet because the outcome of dismissing the claim on the good-faith defence was right despite the improper reasoning, the plaintiff's appeal grounds, which assumed invalidity, did not need further examination, and all appeals were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A buyer that, from the time of concluding the sale contract, had no intention of registering as a leasing business operator for the house in question, since that alone may make the contract void.
- A case where, on the proper construction of the governing statutes, registration of the buyer for that house became definitively impossible, which is the ground on which the contract may fall.
- A rental house to which the Act as amended by Act No. 13499 of 28 August 2015, the Private Rental Housing Special Act, applies, since the decision applied the former Rental Housing Act.
Record verification notes
First confirm that the former Rental Housing Act governs the house, by reference to when the housing was built and when the sale was made, since the decision reads the pre-amendment provisions. Then separate the validity of the sale contract from the acquisition of ownership: registration of ownership transfer alone does not carry ownership, and each house must be checked on its own registration record. Finally, note that the claim here was dismissed on the good-faith defence, which the Supreme Court held correct in result though the reasoning given was inadequate, and that the plaintiff's appeal grounds on that defence were not reached because they assumed invalidity.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 임대주택법상 임대주택의 임대의무기간 중 매도인의 임대사업자 지위를 승계하여 임대사업을 하기 위하여 임대주택을 매수한 경우, 매수인이 임대주택의 소유권을 적법하게 취득하기 위해서는 그 임대주택에 관하여 같은 법 제6조에 따른 임대사업자 등록을 마친 ‘임대사업자’이어야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 여기서 등록된 임대사업자인지는 해당 임대주택별로 각각 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 매수인이 임대주택에 관하여 임대사업자 등록을 할 의사를 가지지 아니하였거나 임대사업자 등록이 확정적으로 불가능하게 된 경우, 매매계약을 무효로 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
In a case where a purchaser acquired rental housing during the rental obligation period of rental housing under the former Rental Housing Act in order to succeed to the seller's status as a rental business operator and conduct the rental business, whether the purchaser must be a 'rental business operator' who has completed registration as a rental business operator under Article 6 of the same Act with respect to the rental housing in order to lawfully acquire ownership of the rental housing (affirmative), and whether one is a registered rental business operator must be determined separately for each rental housing unit in question (affirmative) / In a case where the purchaser had no intention to register as a rental business operator with respect to the rental housing or where registration as a rental business operator has become definitively impossible, whether the sale and purchase contract may be regarded as null and void (affirmative)
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
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
구 임대주택법(2015. 8. 28. 법률 제13499호 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법으로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제4호(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 제7호 및 현행 공공주택 특별법 제4조 제1항 참조), 제6조(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제5조 및 현행 공공주택 특별법 제4조 참조), 제16조 제1항(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제43조 제1항 및 현행 공공주택 특별법 제50조의2 제1항 참조), 제3항(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제43조 제2항 및 현행 공공주택 특별법 제50조의2 제2항 참조), 구 임대주택법 시행령(2015. 12. 28. 대통령령 제26763호 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 시행령으로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제2항 제1호(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제43조 제2항 및 현행 공공주택 특별법 제50조의2 제2항 제1호 참조)
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