A. Legal nature of the lease agreement

(b) Methods for calculating losses sustained by a lessee, where the lessee has used the leased articles before the commencement of the lease period;

A. The lease agreement is a form that newly acquires specified goods selected by the lessee and allows the lessee to use them for a certain period of time without any direct maintenance liability for such goods, and collects the investment amount by receiving a certain amount of the price on a regular basis during that period, and is similar to the lease agreement in form, but its substance is physical financing and is different from that of the lease agreement, so the lease agreement is not immediately applicable to the lease agreement under the Civil Act.

B. If a lessee cancels a lease agreement on the ground that the lessee used the leased object directly prior to the commencement of the lease period, the lessee is liable for compensating for the damages incurred by the lessee due to the illegal use of the leased object, and the damages cannot be calculated based on the acquisition cost of the leased object, and the lessee’s amount equivalent to the lease fee for the actual period of use of the leased object.

Article 618 of the Civil Act; Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Promotion of Facilities Leasing Industry; Article 750 of the Civil Act; Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu503,504 Decided August 19, 1986

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea Development Lease Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na873,874 delivered on November 4, 1986

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1714, 1715 Decided February 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

In general, a lease agreement (facility lease) provides that a lessee shall use specified goods newly acquired by a lessee for a certain period of time without any direct responsibility for the maintenance of such goods, and shall collect the investment amount by regularly paying a certain amount of price through installments during the lease period. This is similar to a lease agreement in form, but its substance is physical financing and is different from that of a lease agreement, so the lease agreement is not immediately applicable to the lease agreement under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu503,405, Aug. 19, 1986).

According to the legal reasoning of the court below, the defendant, while carrying out the above manufacturing business, received a lease request from the non-party 2, who operated the above manufacturing business, and then imported the above leased goods to Japan for one and six items, and thereafter, the above original industry becomes bankrupt due to the business shortage, and the non-party 1, which acquired the above original industry's real property and facilities from the above original industry for the purpose of manufacturing the above original industry, for the purpose of using the above new leased goods for the above 80,000 won (the above new leased goods to the above original industry for 19,000 won) from the date of the above 1982. The court below decided that the above new leased goods had been leased to the above original industry for 19,000 won after the delivery of the above new leased goods to the above original industry for 30,000 won after the delivery of the new leased goods for 19,000 won after the delivery of the above new leased goods to the above 15,000 won.

As above, the court below held that the lease contract of this case was cancelled before the commencement of the lease term and the above main business was held liable for damages for the unlawful use of the leased goods of this case according to the purport of the judgment of remanding this case. In this case, the court below's damages as the defendant suffered cannot be calculated on the basis of the acquisition cost of the leased goods of this case, and the above main business is equivalent to the lease fee for the period of actual use of the leased goods, and the above main business shall be determined on the basis of the amount equivalent to the lease fee for the period of actual use of the leased goods. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the above determination of the court below cannot be said to be contrary to the nature of the lease contract.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is without merit that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on lease contracts such as theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)