[건물명도][공1989.4.15.(846),521]
Legal relations where a lessee who was unable to refund the deposit after the termination of the lease continues to possess the object.
Since the relationship between the lessee's duty to specify the object of lease and the lessor's obligation to return the deposit, which remains after deducting the lessee's obligation to pay back the rent in arrears and other damages, if the lessee occupies and uses the object of lease in accordance with the right of defense of simultaneous performance, such possession cannot be deemed an illegal possession, and thus, he/she shall not be liable to compensate for any damage incurred therefrom: Provided, That if there is any
Articles 741, 618, and 536 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 80Da1201 delivered on January 13, 1981 delivered on September 28, 197, 80Da1495 Delivered on February 10, 1981
Danam Industrial Co., Ltd., Law Firm Pacific, Law Office of Law, Attorney Kim In-con et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff and 37 others, Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-appellant and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee)
Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2491, 2492, 2493 decided June 23, 1987
Of the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) of the lower judgment, the part of the principal lawsuit ordering the payment of KRW 3,148,200 against each of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and KRW 2,098,800 against each of the remaining Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff, the obligation to specify the leased object after the completion of lease and the obligation to return the lease deposit remaining after deducting the lessor’s overdue rent and other damages (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da1241, 1242, Sept. 28, 197). Therefore, in a case where the lessee occupied and uses and benefits from the leased object based on the right of defense of simultaneous performance, the possession cannot be deemed an illegal possession, and thus, the liability for damages arising therefrom shall not be held. However, if a substantial profit is incurred from the use and benefit, it may be returned as unjust enrichment (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1201, Jan. 13, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1495, Feb. 10, 1981).
According to the records, the plaintiff sought compensation for damages caused by the plaintiff's failure to use the leased store's name and the name of the leased store to the defendants due to the expiration of the lease term until the refund of the lease deposit was made by the defendants (see each of the preparatory documents of April 8, 1986 and April 9). However, in this case where the plaintiff cannot be seen as a trace that the plaintiff had provided the defendants with a repayment of the deposit repayment obligation, the court held that the court below recognized the defendants as illegal possession of the leased store from January 1, 1984 to April 21, 1987 when the name was executed by the court of first instance sentenced to provisional execution.
The above determination by the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on damages and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in the termination of a lease agreement. It constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the argument is reasonable.
As to the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants except for the above part of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, they do not feel a need to determine the above part. In other words, the Defendants are dissatisfied with the specific part of the judgment of the court below ordering compensation for damages from the date of August 29, 1984 to April 21, 1987.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)