Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Delivery and registration in a multi-household house, and the transferor's discharge
Supreme Court, Dec. 4, 2025, 2025Da211354 (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 a lessee of part or all of a multi-household single-family house files its resident registration giving only the lot number, and its selected occupant takes delivery of and resides in a room other than the one named in the lease, is the delivery of the house effective as a means of giving notice of the lease, and is the transferor discharged from the deposit return debt to the lessee once the lessee has acquired priority under Article 3(1) and the house has been transferred?
Holding
It is. The Court held that a lessee of part or all of a multi-household single-family house may file its resident registration giving only the lot number, with no duty or need to add the room number, and that delivery is equally effective where the occupant it selected takes delivery of a room other than the one shown in the lease, or the room delivered later changes. Where the lessee thereby acquired priority under Article 3(1) of the Act before the house was transferred, the debt to return the deposit passes to the transferee who succeeded to the landlord's status under Article 3(4), and the transferor is discharged from it. The Court nonetheless dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, because the conclusion dismissing the claim was right even though the reasoning below on implied renewal was not, and it did not need to examine that argument further.
Points at issue, verbatim
주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 주민등록과 더불어 대항력의 요건으로 정한 ‘주택의 인도’의 경우, 임차인이 건물의 일부나 전부를 인도받아 점유하고 있다면 임대차의 공시방법으로 유효한지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
In the case of 'delivery of the housing' prescribed in Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act as a requirement for effect against third parties in addition to residence registration, where the lessee has taken delivery of and occupies part or all of the building, whether it is valid as a method of publicizing the lease (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
원심이 판시한 사실관계를 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면
Unofficial English translation
If the facts as found by the court below are examined in light of the legal principle stated above
Factors
- 다가구용 단독주택 건물의 일부나 전부를 임차하고
- 위 건물의 지번만을 기재하는 것으로 충분한지 여부
- 임차인이 건물의 일부나 전부를 인도받아 점유하고 있다면
- 임대차계약서에 표시된 목적물과 다른 호실을 인도받거나 인도받은 호실이 변경된 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부
- 양도인은 임차인에 대한 임대차보증금반환채무를 면하게 되는지 여부
Unofficial English translation
• leases part or all of the building of a multi-household detached house and
• whether it is sufficient to state only the lot number of the said building
• if the lessee has taken delivery of and occupies part or all of the building
• whether the same applies even where the lessee has taken delivery of a room other than the object stated in the lease agreement or the room delivered has been changed
• whether the transferor is released from the obligation to return the lease deposit to the lessee
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1998. 1. 23. 선고 97다47828 판결(공1998상, 614)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 97Da47828 decided January 23, 1998 (Gong 1998 Sang, 614)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1997. 11. 14. 선고 97다29530 판결(공1997하, 3820), 대법원 1998. 1. 23. 선고 97다47828 판결(공1998상, 614) / [2] 대법원 1987. 3. 10. 선고 86다카1114 판결(공1987, 632), 대법원 2013. 1. 17. 선고 2011다49523 전원합의체 판결(공2013상, 318)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a corporation letting housing under Article 3(2) of the Act seeks the return of a deposit from a transferee who succeeded to the landlord's status, does the five-year commercial prescription run against that claim, and from when?
A later decision on whether the letting of housing by a corporation under Article 3(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act is a commercial act would require this entry to be read again, since this decision did not review that question. Any amendment to Article 3 of the Act or to the rules on resident registration for multi-household houses also calls for a fresh reading.
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 “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary can emphasize application to the room mismatch and transfer, while the independent can emphasize the general requirements for effective registration and delivery stated in the issues.
임차인이 건물의 일부나 전부를 인도받아 점유하고 있다면 임대차의 공시방법으로 유효한지 여부(적극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When a corporation letting housing under Article 3(2) of the Act seeks the return of a deposit from a transferee who succeeded to the landlord's status, does the five-year commercial prescription run against that claim, and from when?” vs Independent “Would possession of a different unit satisfy the delivery requirement if the building consisted of separately owned units rather than a multi-household single-family house?”
The primary asks about commercial prescription for a corporate tenant's deposit claim, while the independent asks about possession of a different unit in a separately owned building.
주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 주민등록과 더불어 대항력의 요건으로 정한 ‘주택의 인도’의 경우, 임차인이 건물의 일부나 전부를 인도받아 점유하고 있다면 임대차의 공시방법으로 유효한지 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 Jeonju District Court, in its judgment of 12 February 2025 (2024Na4875), held that the plaintiff had not met the delivery requirement because its selected occupant took delivery of and lived in Room 205 rather than the leased Room 305, so the plaintiff had not acquired priority under Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and could not assert it against the transferee. It held that with the transferee's ownership registered on 13 October 2015 and the term ending on 26 March 2017, the lease could not have been renewed by implication and had expired, so absent special circumstances the landlord defendants had to return KRW 36,320,000. It nevertheless dismissed the claim, because the defendants ran a letting business on the house and the lease was a commercial act, so the five-year commercial prescription had run before the suit.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that where the plaintiff had leased part of the house, the occupant it selected sublet from it, took delivery of Room 205, completed the resident registration and continued to live in the house, the plaintiff met the delivery requirement and the notice of the lease was effective, whatever room the lease and sublease contracts had named. Because the plaintiff had thus acquired priority before the house was transferred, the deposit return debt passed to the transferee and the transferor was discharged. It held that the reasoning below on implied renewal and expiry of the term was inappropriate, but that the judgment dismissing the claim was right, so the plaintiff's argument on implied renewal could be rejected without further examination and the appeal was dismissed with the concurrence of all Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A lessee that has not completed resident registration, or whose selected occupant does not in fact take delivery of and reside in part of the building, since both registration and delivery are requirements of priority under Article 3(1).
- A house transferred before the lessee acquired priority, since the transferor's discharge presupposes priority already acquired when the transfer takes place.
Record verification notes
Set the resident registration record against the room the occupant actually received, and fix the date on which the plaintiff acquired priority against the date of the transfer to the transferee, since the discharge of the transferor depends on that order. Note that the Court did not review the five-year commercial prescription on which the court below dismissed the claim, so that ground must be checked on its own terms rather than treated as settled here. Keep the figures in view as well: the deposit sought was KRW 36,320,000 of the KRW 40 million deposit, and the term ran to 26 March 2017.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 임차인이 다가구용 단독주택 건물의 일부나 전부를 임차하고 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 대항력 요건을 갖추기 위하여 전입신고를 하는 경우, 위 건물의 지번만을 기재하는 것으로 충분한지 여부(적극) / 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 주민등록과 더불어 대항력의 요건으로 정한 ‘주택의 인도’의 경우, 임차인이 건물의 일부나 전부를 인도받아 점유하고 있다면 임대차의 공시방법으로 유효한지 여부(적극) 및 이는 다가구용 단독주택 내에서 임대차계약서에 표시된 목적물과 다른 호실을 인도받거나 인도받은 호실이 변경된 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) [2] 임차인이 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에 따라 대항력을 갖춘 후 임차주택이 양도되어 양수인이 임대인의 지위를 승계한 경우, 양도인은 임차인에 대한 임대차보증금반환채무를 면하게 되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where a lessee leases part or all of the building of a multi-household detached house and files a report of change of residence in order to satisfy the requirements for effect against third parties prescribed in Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, it is sufficient to state only the lot number of the said building (affirmative) / Whether, in the case of 'delivery of the housing' prescribed in Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act as a requirement for effect against third parties in addition to residence registration, where the lessee has taken delivery of and occupies part or all of the building, it is valid as a method of publicizing the lease (affirmative), and whether the same applies even where, within a multi-household detached house, the lessee has taken delivery of a room other than the object stated in the lease agreement or the room delivered has been changed (affirmative) [2] Whether, where the lessee has acquired effect against third parties pursuant to Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and thereafter the leased housing is transferred and the transferee succeeds to the position of the lessor, the transferor is released from the obligation to return the lease deposit to the lessee (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 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항 / [2] 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항, 제4항
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