전세목적물의 양도와 전세금반환채무의 관계에 관한 연구

It is the case law that upon the conveyance of the subject premises of Chonse(a deposit basis leasehold), the holder of the duty to return the deposit changes from the prior settlor of the Chonse right(a right to hold the deposit basis leasehold) to the new owner of the premises. In the case where a person registers Chonse right in belief that she may collect the deposit from the general liability property of the Chonse right settlor even if she knew she might not receive a preferential payment from the subject premises of Chonse right due to a preferential claim on that premises, if the settlor transfers the premises to the new owner who has no other financial resources, it is possible that the holder of the Chonse right may suffer damages arising from the inability to collect the deposit from the new owner. The case law shows that Chonse right and the claim for the return of the Chonse deposit may not be indefeasibly conveyed in separation. However, I personally believe that the court is wrong about this. Chonse right contains the usufruct power and the security power. Therefore, even if the Chonse system that separates the usufruct right holder, the creditor, and Chonse right settlor is allowed, it is not against the following and the accompanying nature of the real right granted in a way of security. And changing the debtor due to the fact that the Chonse right settlor's legal status as a debtor may be transferred to the new owner of the subject premises of Chonse without a process for a debt substitution or a contract substitution may cause unexpected damages on the part of the Chonse right holder. Therefore, I think it is valid that the attitude of the court toward this matter should change.