Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Loan-linked lease-right insurance cover where the lease is deemed to subsist
Supreme Court, Sept. 11, 2025, 2025Da207128 (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
Where a borrower moves out of the house during the period in which the lease is deemed to subsist under Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and thereby loses the right of subrogation and priority of repayment, does the resulting loss fall within 'during the lease term' in the insurance-payment clause of a loan-linked lease-right insurance business agreement, so that the insurer owes insurance money?
Holding
Yes, on these facts. Taking together the provisions of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the circumstances and purpose in which the business agreement was concluded, the Supreme Court held that the period in which the lease is deemed to subsist under Article 4(2) of that Act also counts as 'during the lease term'. Where in that period the borrower does not repay the loan and the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation is likewise released because the tenant lost the right of subrogation or priority of repayment, the insurer owes insurance money for the loss by which the financial institution could not recover the loan.
Points at issue, verbatim
주택임대차보호법의 규정 및 위 업무협정의 체결경위나 목적 등에 비추어 보면, 주택임대차보호법 제4조 제2항에 따라 임대차관계가 존속되는 것으로 보는 시기의 경우에도 ‘임대차기간 중’에 해당하고, 이때 차주가 대출채무를 변제하지 아니하고 주택도시보증공사 또한 임차인의 대항력 또는 우선변제권 상실로 면책되었다면, 을 회사는 이로 인하여 갑 회사가 대출금을 회수하지 못하는 손해에 대한 보험금 지급의무를 부담한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
In light of the provisions of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the circumstances and purpose of the conclusion of the above business agreement, even for a period during which the lease relationship is deemed to continue pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, such period falls within "during the lease term," and if at that time the borrower fails to perform the loan obligation and the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation is also released from liability due to the tenant's loss of opposability or the right to preferential payment, then Company B bears the obligation to pay insurance benefits for the loss suffered by Company A in being unable to recover the loan, as held in this case
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
주택임대차보호법의 규정 및 위 업무협정의 체결경위나 목적 등에 비추어 보면, 주택임대차보호법 제4조 제2항에 따라 임대차관계가 존속되는 것으로 보는 시기의 경우에도 ‘임대차기간 중’에 해당하고
Unofficial English translation
In light of the provisions of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the circumstances and purpose of the conclusion of the above business agreement, even for a period during which the lease relationship is deemed to continue pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, such period falls within "during the lease term,"
Factors
- 주택임대차보호법의 규정 및 위 업무협정의 체결경위나 목적 등에 비추어 보면
- 주택임대차보호법 제4조 제2항에 따라 임대차관계가 존속되는 것으로 보는 시기의 경우에도 ‘임대차기간 중’에 해당하고
- 차주가 대출채무를 변제하지 아니하고
- 주택도시보증공사 또한 임차인의 대항력 또는 우선변제권 상실로 면책되었다면
- 갑 회사가 대출금을 회수하지 못하는 손해에 대한 보험금 지급의무를 부담한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• In light of the provisions of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the circumstances and purpose of the conclusion of the above business agreement
• even for a period during which the lease relationship is deemed to continue pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, such period falls within "during the lease term,"
• the borrower fails to perform the loan obligation
• the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation is also released from liability due to the tenant's loss of opposability or the right to preferential payment
• Company B bears the obligation to pay insurance benefits for the loss suffered by Company A in being unable to recover the loan, as held in this case
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 9. 4. 선고 2001다64615 판결 및 대법원 2023. 2. 2. 선고 2022다255126 판결 취지 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64615 decided September 4, 2002 and Supreme Court Decision 2022Da255126 decided February 2, 2023
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the insurance-payment clause had defined the insured event only by the calendar lease term, without the purpose of compensating loss linked to the loan service set out in the agreement, would the period deemed to subsist under Article 4(2) still count as 'during the lease term'?
The judgment the Seoul Central District Court delivers on remand, once it examines the interpretation of the business agreement and the facts it left unexamined, will show how this clause is applied in practice. Any amendment to Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, or a later decision on discharge under guarantee terms or on the scope of reversal in principal and alternative joint actions, 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 “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary can emphasize the text's joint consideration of statutory provisions and contractual background and purpose, while the independent can emphasize its application to this insurance dispute.
주택임대차보호법의 규정 및 위 업무협정의 체결경위나 목적 등에 비추어 보면, 주택임대차보호법 제4조 제2항에 따라 임대차관계가 존속되는 것으로 보는 시기의 경우에도 ‘임대차기간 중’에 해당하고Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the insurance-payment clause had defined the insured event only by the calendar lease term, without the purpose of compensating loss linked to the loan service set out in the agreement, would the period deemed to subsist under Article 4(2) still count as 'during the lease term'?” vs Independent “What amount of the lender's unrecovered loan is ultimately payable under the insurance contract after further examination on remand?”
The primary asks how differently drafted coverage terms would affect the covered period, while the independent asks about the amount payable after remand.
주택임대차보호법의 규정 및 위 업무협정의 체결경위나 목적 등에 비추어 보면, 주택임대차보호법 제4조 제2항에 따라 임대차관계가 존속되는 것으로 보는 시기의 경우에도 ‘임대차기간 중’에 해당하고, 이때 차주가 대출채무를 변제하지 아니하고 주택도시보증공사 또한 임차인의 대항력 또는 우선변제권 상실로 면책되었다면, 을 회사는 이로 인하여 갑 회사가 대출금을 회수하지 못하는 손해에 대한 보험금 지급의무를 부담한다고 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 20 December 2024 (2024Na23629) citing the first-instance judgment, dismissed all of Company A's claims. It held that the borrower moved out on 28 February 2022, after the lease term had ended and the deposit-return claim had been extinguished, so the loss was not a 'loss due to defects in the tenant's right of subrogation and priority of repayment during the lease term' under Article 8(1)(v) of the business agreement. It also held that the Corporation was released under Article 22(i) of the guarantee terms.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the reasoning as to Insurance Company B could not be accepted. Because the deposit-return claim had been assigned to the Corporation and the assignment notified to the landlord, the landlord's obligation could not be deemed extinguished, and under Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act the lease subsists until the Corporation recovers the full deposit, so the move-out fell within the discharge clause; the lower court had misapprehended the law on the interpretation of the business agreement and failed to examine what was needed. It found no such error as to the Corporation. Because a principal and alternative joint action must be resolved by one final judgment as to all defendants (Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), that part had to be reversed together, so the whole judgment was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the tenant does not lose the right of subrogation or priority of repayment during the period in which the lease is deemed to subsist, so the Corporation is not released.
- A case in which the borrower repays the loan, so no loss of failing to recover it arises.
- A case in which the deposit-return claim was not assigned to the Corporation or the assignment was not notified to the landlord.
Record verification notes
Set the dates in the file against the clause: the end of the lease term, the move-out date and the loan maturity date. Then check the wording of Article 8(1)(v) of the business agreement and Article 22(i) of the guarantee terms, and whether the deposit-return claim was assigned and the assignment notified, since each carried weight. The provisions cited include Article 105 of the Civil Code and Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the remand court must still examine the facts and the interpretation of the agreement.
From the official text
Points at issue
갑 주식회사는 을 보험회사와 전세자금대출용권리보험(Ⅱ) 운영에 관한 업무협정을 체결한 금융기관으로서, 병이 주택에 관한 임대차계약을 체결하면서 주택도시보증공사의 전세금안심대출보증에 가입하여 임차보증금반환채권을 주택도시보증공사에 양도한 다음, 주택도시보증공사가 갑 회사를 보증채권자로 하는 전세금안심대출보증서를 발급하였고, 갑 회사가 이를 기초로 병에게 전세자금을 대출하고 을 회사와 보험계약을 체결하였는데, 이후 병이 대출금을 상환하지 못하자, 갑 회사가 을 회사 및 주택도시보증공사를 상대로 보험금의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 주택임대차보호법의 규정 및 위 업무협정의 체결경위나 목적 등에 비추어 보면, 주택임대차보호법 제4조 제2항에 따라 임대차관계가 존속되는 것으로 보는 시기의 경우에도 ‘임대차기간 중’에 해당하고, 이때 차주가 대출채무를 변제하지 아니하고 주택도시보증공사 또한 임차인의 대항력 또는 우선변제권 상실로 면책되었다면, 을 회사는 이로 인하여 갑 회사가 대출금을 회수하지 못하는 손해에 대한 보험금 지급의무를 부담한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
This case concerns an issue where Company A, a stock corporation and financial institution that had entered into a business agreement with Company B, an insurance company, for the operation of Rights Insurance (II) for Jeonse Funds Loans, in which C, upon entering into a lease agreement for a dwelling, enrolled in the Jeonse Deposit Safe Loan Guarantee of the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation and assigned the claim for return of the lease deposit to the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation, after which the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation issued a Jeonse Deposit Safe Loan Guarantee Certificate designating Company A as the creditor under the guarantee, and Company A, on the basis thereof, extended jeonse funds to C and entered into an insurance contract with Company B; subsequently, when C failed to repay the loan, Company A sought payment of insurance benefits from Company B and the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation, and in such a case, in light of the provisions of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the circumstances and purpose of the conclusion of the above business agreement, even for a period during which the lease relationship is deemed to continue pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, such period falls within "during the lease term," and if at that time the borrower fails to perform the loan obligation and the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation is also released from liability due to the tenant's loss of opposability or the right to preferential payment, then Company B bears the obligation to pay insurance benefits for the loss suffered by Company A in being unable to recover the loan, as held in this case
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 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
민법 제105조, 주택임대차보호법 제4조 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