Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Opposition power lost when the lessee buys the leased house
Supreme Court, Jan. 8, 2026, 2025Da213466 (judgment)
Case name: 보증금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
After a house registered under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act loses its lessee to ownership by acquiring the leased house during the lease term, can that residence registration still be a valid public notice on which opposition power depends, and does that loss of opposition power and priority right release the guarantee company from its guarantee obligation under the guarantee terms?
Holding
No. The residence registration is a public notice made so that a third party can clearly recognise the existence of the lease right, so formal registration alone is not enough; the possession it represents must be recognisable by a third party as possession mediated by the lease right. Since, in a housing lease with no other method of public notice, delivery and residence registration must continue for the opposition power to be maintained, not merely when it is acquired, a lessee who acquires the leased house and becomes owner loses opposition power and priority right at the time ownership is acquired, and the guarantee company is released under the guarantee terms.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 임차인의 주민등록은 임차주택에 관하여 임차인의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 이후에는 주택임대차의 대항력 인정요건이 되는 유효한 공시방법이 될 수 없고, 그 대항력은 소유권 취득 시에 소멸한다.
Unofficial English translation
that lessee's resident registration cannot, after the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the leased housing has been completed in the name of the lessee, serve as a valid method of public notice constituting a requirement for recognition of opposability of the housing lease, and such opposability is extinguished at the time of acquisition of ownership.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
달리 공시방법이 없는 주택임대차에 있어서 주택의 인도 및 주민등록이라는 대항요건은 그 대항력 취득 시에만 구비하면 족한 것이 아니라 그 대항력을 유지하기 위하여서도 계속 존속하고 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In a housing lease for which there is no other method of public notice, the opposability requirement of delivery of the housing and resident registration need not be satisfied only at the time of acquisition of opposability, but must continue to subsist also in order to maintain such opposability.
Factors
- 주민등록에 의하여 표상되는 점유관계가 임차권을 매개로 하는 점유임을 제3자가 인식할 수 있는 정도는 되어야 한다
- 그 대항력을 유지하기 위하여서도 계속 존속하고 있어야 한다
- 임차주택에 관하여 임차인의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 이후에는
- 보증공사가 보증채무를 이행할 경우 임대차보증금반환채권을 행사할 수 있는 상황에서
- 을이 임차주택의 소유권을 취득하여 대항력과 우선변제권을 상실하였으므로
Unofficial English translation
• the possession represented by the resident registration must be such that a third party may recognize it to be possession mediated through a leasehold
• must continue to subsist also in order to maintain such opposability
• after the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the leased housing has been completed in the name of the lessee,
• in a situation where, if the guarantee corporation performs the guarantee obligation, it may exercise the claim for return of the lease deposit,
• B acquired ownership of the leased housing and thereby lost opposability and the right to preferential payment,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1998. 1. 23. 선고 97다43468 판결(공1998상, 609)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 97Da43468 pronounced January 23, 1998 (Gong 1998 Sang, 609)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1999. 4. 23. 선고 98다32939 판결(공1999상, 993), 대법원 2000. 2. 11. 선고 99다59306 판결(공2000상, 688) / [2] 대법원 1998. 1. 23. 선고 97다43468 판결(공1998상, 609), 대법원 2025. 4. 15. 선고 2024다326398 판결(공2025상, 821)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the guarantee terms had not made the loss of opposition power or priority right an exemption clause, on what ground could the guarantee company still be released when the lessee became the owner?
A later decision holding that opposition power can revive, or be measured by another date, after the lessee disposes of the ownership acquired, would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act on the public notice effect of residence registration, or to Article 26(1)(ii) of the Housing and Urban Fund Act, would do the same.
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 “If the guarantee terms had not made the loss of opposition power or priority right an exemption clause, on what ground could the guarantee company still be released when the lessee became the owner?” vs Independent “Would the guarantor remain liable if the tenant notified it before acquiring ownership of the leased dwelling?”
The primary asks what other ground would release the guarantor without the exemption clause, while the independent asks whether prior notice to the guarantor would keep its liability.
그 임차인의 주민등록은 임차주택에 관하여 임차인의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 이후에는 주택임대차의 대항력 인정요건이 되는 유효한 공시방법이 될 수 없고, 그 대항력은 소유권 취득 시에 소멸한다.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 Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 23 May 2025 (2023Na65275), dismissed the plaintiff bank's claim for performance of the guarantee obligation. It held that, once the lessee acquired the leased house and had the ownership transfer registered on 16 December 2019 during the lease term, the lessee lost opposition power and priority right, so under Article 22(i) of the guarantee terms the defendant guarantee company was released from its guarantee obligation.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the reasoning of the court below contained some parts that were not entirely apt, but the conclusion it reached was acceptable. It found no error that affected the judgment in misapplying the law on confusion under the Civil Code, on the interpretation of the exemption clause in the guarantee terms, or on the loss of opposition power and priority right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A lease for which another method of public notice exists, such as a registered lease right, since the Court stated the continuing requirement for house leases with no other public notice.
- A lessee who did not acquire ownership of the leased house, so that the registration continues to represent possession mediated by the lease right.
- A guarantee whose terms do not make the loss of opposition power or priority right an exemption clause, since the release here rested on Article 22(i) of the guarantee terms.
Record verification notes
Set the date of the ownership transfer registration of the leased house against the date on which the residence registration was made and against the lease term, since opposition power was held to end at the acquisition. Then read the version of the guarantee terms actually issued with the loan guarantee certificate, and check whether the claim is for performance of the guarantee obligation or for reimbursement against the principal debtor, since the exemption clause was applied to the former.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 주민등록이 대항력의 요건을 충족시키는 공시방법이 되기 위한 요건 [2] 주택임대차에서 주택의 인도와 주민등록이라는 대항요건은 대항력의 취득 시만이 아니라 대항력을 유지하기 위해서도 계속 존속하고 있어야 하는지 여부(적극) / 대항력을 갖춘 임차인이 임차주택을 양수하여 소유자가 된 경우, 임차인의 주민등록이 소유권이전등기 이후에도 대항력의 인정요건이 되는 유효한 공시방법이 되는지 여부(소극) 및 이 경우 대항력의 소멸 시기(=소유권 취득 시) [3] 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, 주택임대차보호법상 대항력과 우선변제권을 갖춘 임차인으로서 위 보증에 따른 구상금채무를 담보하기 위하여 임대차보증금반환채권을 보증공사에 양도한 을이 임대차기간 중 임차주택을 매수하여 소유권이전등기를 마친 후 대출금을 상환하지 않자, 갑 은행이 보증공사에 보증채무의 이행을 청구한 사안에서, 을이 임차주택의 소유권을 취득하여 대항력과 우선변제권을 상실하였으므로 위 보증약관에 따라 보증공사가 면책되었다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Requirements for the resident registration provided in Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act to constitute a method of public notice satisfying the requirements for opposability [2] Whether, in a housing lease, the opposability requirement of delivery of the housing and resident registration must continue to subsist not only at the time of acquisition of opposability but also in order to maintain opposability (affirmative) / Where a lessee possessing opposability acquires the leased housing and becomes the owner, whether the lessee's resident registration constitutes a valid method of public notice satisfying the requirements for recognition of opposability even after the registration of the transfer of ownership (negative), and the time at which opposability is extinguished in such case (= the time of acquisition of ownership) [3] A case in which, while Bank A extended a jeonse deposit safety loan to B and received as security a loan guarantee certificate issued by the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation, the guarantee terms and conditions of such certificate contained a provision stipulating, as a ground for exemption, the case where "the specially stipulated principal debtor has moved into the address of the jeonse object and completed resident registration, and thereafter, during the term of the jeonse contract, has relocated residence or transferred resident registration, etc. without notifying the guarantee corporation, thereby losing opposability and the right to preferential payment"; B, a lessee possessing opposability and the right to preferential payment under the Housing Lease Protection Act, assigned to the guarantee corporation the claim for return of the lease deposit in order to secure the obligation under a right of recourse arising from said guarantee, and thereafter, during the lease term, purchased the leased housing and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership but failed to repay the loan, whereupon Bank A demanded performance of the guarantee obligation from the guarantee corporation; held, that there is no misapprehension of legal principles or other error in the judgment of the court below, which held that the guarantee corporation was exempted under the said guarantee terms and conditions on the ground that B had lost opposability and the right to preferential payment by acquiring ownership of the leased housing
Summary of the holding
[1] 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항에서 주택의 인도와 더불어 대항력의 요건으로 규정하고 있는 주민등록은 거래의 안전을 위하여 임차권의 존재를 제3자가 명백히 인식할 수 있게 하는 공시방법으로 마련된 것으로서, 주민등록이 어떤 임대차를 공시하는 효력이 있는지 여부는 그 주민등록으로 제3자가 임차권의 존재를 인식할 수 있는지에 따라 결정된다. 따라서 주민등록이 대항력의 요건을 충족시킬 수 있는 공시방법이 되려면 단순히 형식적으로 주민등록이 되어 있다는 것만으로는 부족하고, 주민등록에 의하여 표상되는 점유관계가 임차권을 매개로 하는 점유임을 제3자가 인식할 수 있는 정도는 되어야 한다. [2] 주택임대차보호법이 제3조 제1항에서 주택임차인에게 주택의 인도와 주민등록을 요건으로 명시하여 등기된 물권에 버금가는 강력한 대항력을 부여하고 있는 취지에 비추어 볼 때 달리 공시방법이 없는 주택임대차에 있어서 주택의 인도 및 주민등록이라는 대항요건은 그 대항력 취득 시에만 구비하면 족한 것이 아니라 그 대항력을 유지하기 위하여서도 계속 존속하고 있어야 한다. 따라서 대항력을 갖춘 임차인이 해당 임차주택을 양수함으로써 임차주택의 소유자가 된 경우에, 그 임차인의 주민등록은 임차주택에 관하여 임차인의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 이후에는 주택임대차의 대항력 인정요건이 되는 유효한 공시방법이 될 수 없고, 그 대항력은 소유권 취득 시에 소멸한다. [3] 갑 은행이 을에게 전세금안심대출을 실행하면서 담보로 교부받은 주택도시보증공사(이하 ‘보증공사’라 한다) 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, 주택임대차보호법상 대항력과 우선변제권을 갖춘 임차인으로서 위 보증에 따른 구상금채무를 담보하기 위하여 임대차보증금반환채권을 보증공사에 양도한 을이 임대차기간 중 임차주택을 매수하여 소유권이전등기를 마친 후 대출금을 상환하지 않자, 갑 은행이 보증공사에 보증채무의 이행을 청구한 사안에서, 보증공사가 보증채무를 이행할 경우 임대차보증금반환채권을 행사할 수 있는 상황에서 을이 임차주택의 소유권을 취득하여 대항력과 우선변제권을 상실하였으므로 위 보증약관에 따라 보증공사의 보증채무가 면책되었다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 없다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 보조참가로 인한 부분은 원고보조참가인이, 나머지는 원고가 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. Of the costs of final appeal, the portion attributable to the auxiliary intervention shall be borne by the plaintiff's auxiliary intervener, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항 / [2] 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항 / [3] 민법 제105조, 제428조, 주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항, 제3조의2 제2항, 주택도시기금법 제26조 제1항 제2호
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