[건물철거등][공1994.10.15.(978),2609]
A. Whether the expression of intent to terminate the lease agreement by temporarily denying the establishment of the lease agreement is contrary to the principle of no more than half the doctrine. Whether the payment of rent may be refused on the ground of the existence of the lease deposit, or the non-performance of obligation due to the delay thereof may be exempted.
A. Although there was a dispute between a lessor and a lessee over the subject matter, etc. of a lease agreement, and even if the lessor temporarily denied the establishment of a lease agreement during the dispute, the expression of intent to terminate the lease agreement on the ground of two or more years of grace period cannot be deemed as a violation of the doctrine of the prohibition of speech.
B. At the time when a lessee entered into a lease agreement, the lessee is guaranteed the lessee’s all obligations arising from the lease relationship, such as overdue rent, etc., with the lease deposit paid to the lessor at the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement, and the lessee cannot be exempt from payment of the rent on the ground of the existence of such deposit
Articles 618 and 640 of the Civil Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1
Defendant
Daejeon District Court Decision 93Na3361 delivered on December 3, 1993
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's determination that the lease contract on the land of this case entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant was lawfully terminated by the notice of termination on the ground of two or more rents of the defendant, and in such a case, the court below's determination that the tenant of the land for the purpose of owning the building does not have the right to purchase the building of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.
The issue is that the plaintiff did not recognize the lease itself, such as filing a criminal complaint against the defendant on the completion of the building of this case, even though the defendant lawfully provided the plaintiff the rent under the above lease agreement, and that the plaintiff's expression of intent to terminate the lease agreement of this case was illegal or invalid because it was in violation of the principle of no payment, or that the defendant did not pay the rent for not less than 2 years after July 1991, the court below was legally established, and there is no clear evidence that the plaintiff refused to accept the lease agreement of this case even though the defendant provided the rent for the overdue rent of this case lawfully. The termination of the lease agreement of this case is legitimate, as determined by the court below, since there was a dispute about the subject matter of the lease of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, and even if the plaintiff was temporarily denied the lease agreement of this case as a result of the dispute, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's expression of intent to terminate the lease agreement of this case was not in violation of the principle of no payment of the lease deposit of this case.
All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)