임대차는 채권관계에 불과하므로 물권과 달리 대세적인 대항력이없고, 성립 요건상 등기를 하여야 대항력이 생기는 것이 민법상의 원칙이다. 그러나 임대인의 우월적 지위 등으로 인하여 등기실행이 되지않았고, 이러한 폐해를 반영하여 주택임대차보호법(이하 주임법) 제3 조 제1항은 등기 없이도 인도와 주민등록만으로 임대차에 대항력을부여하고, 제4항에서는 대항력의 내용으로 ‘임대주택의 양수인은 임대인의 지위를 승계한 것으로 본다’라고 규정하게 되었다. 여기서 주임법상 대항력을 갖춘 임차인의 임대차보증금반환채권이가압류된 상태에서 임대주택이 양도된 경우, 양도인은 임대차 관계에서 탈퇴하여 임차인에 대한 임대차보증금반환채무를 면하게 되고 양수인만이 보증금반환채무를 부담하는지 여부(실체법상의 지위승계 문제)와 양수인이 채권가압류의 제3채무자의 지위까지 승계하는지 여부가 문제(집행법상의 지위승계 문제)된다. 이것이 대상판결의 사안에대한 논점의 핵심이다. 대상판결은 주임법 제3조 제4항의 대항력과 임대주택 양도인의 지위 승계에 관한 것으로서, 대상판결의 다수의견은 사법체계 전체에대한 체계적인 해석이라는 거시적인 해석을 외면하고 사회적 약자인임차인 보호라는 주임법의 취지에만 충실한 나머지 양수인이 양도인(임대인)의 실체법상의 지위는 물론 집행법상의 제3채무자의 지위까지도 승계한다고 해석함으로써 집행법의 처분금지효라는 대원칙을 훼손하는 결과를 초래하였다. 한편 대상판결의 반대의견(가압류소멸설) 역시 적법한 채권가압류결정이 주택의 양도에 의하여 쉽게 부정되는 결과를 초래함으로써 가압류제도의 기본 취지에 정면으로 배치된다. 따라서 대상판결과 같은 사안에서 주택 양도시 실체법상의 지위는계약인수의 법리에 따라서 승계되고(법정계약인수), 집행법상의 효력인 채권가압류결정의 효력은 소멸하지 않고 그대로 유지되며, 제3채무자의 지위는 양수인에게 승계되지 않는다고 보는 것(승계부정설)이 주임법의 대항력에 관한 체계적인 해석과 처분금지효(현상보전효)라는채권가압류제도의 취지에도 정합(整合)함은 물론 실체법과 절차법의고유한 법리를 훼손하지 않고도 대상판결의 사안을 현실적으로 무리없이 해결할 수가 있게 된다.
Unlike property rights, rentals are nothing but bond relationships. The principle of civil law is that registration should be made in accordance with the requirements for establishment to create a counter-power. However, the registration was not carried out due to the superior status of the renter. Reflecting such harmful effects, delivery and resident registration alone were given the opposition to lease without registration. In the event that the leasehold house is transferred while the lease deposit return bond of the tenant with the opposing power is under provisional seizure, the transferor withdraws from the lease relationship and is exempted from the lease deposit return obligation to the tenant. It is a matter of whether only transferee bears the deposit return obligation and whether the transferee succeeds to the status of the third debtor of thebond seizure. This verdict concerns the opposing power of Article 3, Paragraph 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the succession of the status of the renter of rental housing. The majority opinion of this verdict was that the transferee, who ignored the macroscopic interpretation of the whole judicial system and was faithful to the purpose of the act of protecting tenants, the socially disadvantaged, succeeded not only the actual status of the transferor but also the status of the third debtor under the Enforcement Act. Therefore, it resulted in undermining the broad principle of prohibition of disposal of the enforcement law. On the other hand, opposition to the verdict also resulted in the decision to impose a legal bond being easily negated by the transfer of a house. This directly contradicts the basic purpose of the provisional attachment system. Therefore, in the same matters as this verdict, the status of the Housing Lease Protection Act is carried forward according to the law of the acquisition of a contract. The effect of the bond-bearing determination, which is the effect of the enforcement law, remains unchanged. The fact that the status of the third debtor is not inherited by the transferee is consistent with the systematic interpretation of the counterpower of the principal law and the purpose of the bond-bearing system called the prohibition of disposal. And it will be possible to solve the case of the judgment without damaging the inherent laws of the substantive law and the procedural law.
Unlike property rights, rentals are nothing but bond relationships. The principle of civil law is that registration should be made in accordance with the requirements for establishment to create a counter-power. However, the registration was not carried out due to the superior status of the renter. Reflecting such harmful effects, delivery and resident registration alone were given the opposition to lease without registration. In the event that the leasehold house is transferred while the lease deposit return bond of the tenant with the opposing power is under provisional seizure, the transferor withdraws from the lease relationship and is exempted from the lease deposit return obligation to the tenant. It is a matter of whether only transferee bears the deposit return obligation and whether the transferee succeeds to the status of the third debtor of thebond seizure. This verdict concerns the opposing power of Article 3, Paragraph 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the succession of the status of the renter of rental housing. The majority opinion of this verdict was that the transferee, who ignored the macroscopic interpretation of the whole judicial system and was faithful to the purpose of the act of protecting tenants, the socially disadvantaged, succeeded not only the actual status of the transferor but also the status of the third debtor under the Enforcement Act. Therefore, it resulted in undermining the broad principle of prohibition of disposal of the enforcement law. On the other hand, opposition to the verdict also resulted in the decision to impose a legal bond being easily negated by the transfer of a house. This directly contradicts the basic purpose of the provisional attachment system. Therefore, in the same matters as this verdict, the status of the Housing Lease Protection Act is carried forward according to the law of the acquisition of a contract. The effect of the bond-bearing determination, which is the effect of the enforcement law, remains unchanged. The fact that the status of the third debtor is not inherited by the transferee is consistent with the systematic interpretation of the counterpower of the principal law and the purpose of the bond-bearing system called the prohibition of disposal. And it will be possible to solve the case of the judgment without damaging the inherent laws of the substantive law and the procedural law.
