[건물명도등청구사건][하집1985(1),52]
In addition, if the lessor does not pay the security deposit after the expiration of the due date of the claim transfer, whether the claim for damages is made against the lessee.
In case where only a lease deposit has been paid without a rent and the lease of a real estate has been made, the said deposit is a special method of payment of the rent necessary for the lease and use of the real estate, and the interest and the rent of the said deposit are offset by each other. Therefore, even if the lessee continues to possess the said real estate even after the expiration of the lease term, the lessor cannot be entitled to claim damages equivalent to the rent of the said real estate even if
Articles 618 and 750 of the Civil Act
Seoul Telephone Corporation
Park Ho-hee
Busan District Court (84Gahap455)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
피고는 원고에게 부산 동구 수정동 325의3 대 7.6평방미터, 같은 동 325의4 대 376. 5평방미터, 같은동 324의6 대 2.3평방미터를 인도하고, 위 325의 3, 325의 4 지상에 세워진 별지도면표시 ㄱ, ㄴ, ㄷ, ㄹ, ㅁ, ㅂ, ㅅ, ㅇ, ㄱ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내부분 철근기둥 및 목조 루삥즙 평가건 건물 1동 건평 153.9평방미터와 위 325의4 지상에 세워진 같은 도면표시 ㅇ, ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅂ, ㅅ, ㅇ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내부분 보로크조 루삥즙 평가건 주택 1동 건평 31.2평방 미터 및 위 325의4 지상에 세워진 같은 도면표시 ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㅎ, ㅋ,의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내부분 목조 스레트즙 평가건 변소 1동 건평 1.8평방미터를 명도하고 금 22,700,000원과 1984. 2. 7.부터 명도완료일까지 월 금 678,890원의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급하라.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution judgment.
According to the whole purport of testimony and pleading of the above witness Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Lease Contract) and Nos. 4 (Peremptory Notice) to which the authenticity is established by the testimony of the number of copies of the witness at the court below's judgment, according to the whole purport of testimony and pleading of the above witness, the defendant on January 17, 1983, when using the site and building entered in the plaintiff's claim from the plaintiff company as a deposit amount of KRW 4,00,000 without monthly rent, and when using the site and building mentioned in the plaintiff's claim from the plaintiff company as a lease for a period of six months, the lease period expires, and the plaintiff between the plaintiff and the defendant to order the plaintiff by February 6, 1984, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.
Therefore, according to the defendant's defense, the defendant is obligated to receive 4,00,000 won from the plaintiff and deliver the building site of this case to the plaintiff at the same time. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased the building site of this case from the non-party Korea Land Development Corporation for the construction of the plaintiff's house, and the defendant did not comply with the plaintiff's request for delivery on October 8, 1983 and December 10 of the same year after the expiration of the above lease term. Thus, the plaintiff company did not start the construction of the plaintiff's private house and thereby caused losses which amount to 26,70,000 won for the reason that the building site of this case was non-business land of the corporation, and thus, the defendant did not know about the above 22,70,000 won remaining after set off the lease deposit of this case from the above 200,000 won, and the defendant argued that the defendant was not liable for compensation for damages for the above 19,000 won for non-business reasons (No. 18,014).
In other words, on February 6, 1984, the plaintiff argued that the defendant sought compensation for damages at the rate of KRW 678,890 per month from February 7, 1984 to the time when the land in this case is transferred to the plaintiff, and the defendant did not make a monthly rent from the company and used the land in this case without ordering the plaintiff company to do so, and therefore, the above deposit should be a special method of payment of rent necessary for leasing and using the land in this case, so the plaintiff's interest and rent are offset against each other. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the compensation for damages at the rate of KRW 678,890 per month from February 7, 1984 to the time when the land in this case is transferred to the plaintiff is without merit.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to receive 4,00,000 won from the plaintiff and to order the building site and building stated in the purport of the claim. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit. The judgment below is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)