In a sales contract or an exchange contract with a leasehold on a lease basis, where a lessor fails to perform his/her obligations under the lease contract due to the exercise of a right to collateral security established on the lease object, whether the lessee is liable to indemnify the seller pursuant to Article 576 of the Civil Act (negative in principle)

In a case where a contract of lease (including a right to claim the return of a security deposit) based on a lease is established, unless the seller has agreed to secure the performance of the duty under the lease contract by the lessor, the right to collateral security already established on the leased object at the time of the lease contract becomes impossible to perform the duty of the successful bidder to use or profit from the leased object by acquiring the ownership of the leased object after the lease contract was executed, or even if the obligation of the successful bidder to return the lease deposit is not actually performed due to the lessor's insolvency, it cannot be deemed that the lessee is liable for the performance of the obligation under Article 576 of the Civil Act. This legal doctrine also applies to the case where

Articles 576, 579, and 596 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

An intervenor;

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2004Na3554, 2004Na5406 decided May 19, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, the appointed party).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that it was difficult to recognize the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1 entered into the auction procedure of this case on the ground that the non-party 1, the husband of this case, was well aware of the fact that the non-party 1 would immediately commence the auction procedure based on the right to collateral security (the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the loan obligation which is the collateral obligation of the above right to collateral security (the non-party 2, the designated party, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 35, the non-party 1, even if there was any problem in the bath building of this case, and the non-party 1, in light of its reasoning.

In light of the records, the facts established by the court below and the above judgments based on them are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 4, and 5, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to confession, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the duty of disclosure, violation of the principle of disposition right, violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation

However, according to the records, although the name of the debtor of the right to collateral security in this case is Nonparty 2 but the non-party 3 actually paid interest on the loan, which is the secured debt, for not less than one year until June 2002, he could be found to have known that he had been aware of the delinquency in payment of the loan, the court below erred in holding that the non-party 3 provided it as security to the National Mutual Saving and Finance Company as the owner of the right to collateral security in this case, and did not know about the delinquency in payment of the loan or the amount thereof, since the non-party 3 was not the debtor of the right to collateral security in this case. However, from the circumstance that the non-party 3 knew of the delinquency in payment of the right to collateral security in this case, it cannot be inferred that the non-party 1 knew it to the defendant, and even after considering the above circumstances and other evidence, the judgment of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment below. Thus, the ground of appeal No. 1 of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 6

In the event that a contract of lease (including a right to claim the return of a security deposit; hereinafter the same shall apply) based on a lease agreement is established, unless the seller expressly agrees that the performance of the lease agreement is secured by the lessor (see Article 579 of the Civil Act), even if the right to collateral security already established on the leased object at the time of the lease agreement becomes impossible to perform the obligation of the successful bidder to use or profit from the leased object by acquiring the ownership of the leased object, or even if the obligation of the successful bidder to return the lease deposit is not actually performed due to the lessor's insolvency, it cannot be said that the lessee has the liability for warranty pursuant to Article 576 of the Civil Act.This legal doctrine applies to the case where the right to lease is set as the object

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the right of lease aimed at this case was not able to achieve the purpose of the exchange contract of this case because the secured debt of the right to collateral security established as to the bath building of this case was in imminent situation beyond the maximum debt amount at the time of conclusion of the exchange contract of this case, and therefore, the right of lease for this purpose was not able to achieve the purpose of the exchange contract of this case, and therefore, it is just in light of the records, and there are some deficiencies in the reasoning of the court below, but the judgment of the court below also includes the determination that the warranty liability of Nonparty 1 based on Article 576 of the Civil Act is not established in accordance with the above legal principles. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the warranty liability of the exchange contract of this case

In addition, according to the records, at the time of Nonparty 1’s conclusion of the instant exchange contract with the Defendant, it cannot be acknowledged that Nonparty 1 agreed to secure the performance of the duty as the lessor of Nonparty 3, who is the lessor, and thus, the assertion of Nonparty 6 in the grounds of appeal premised on such special agreement cannot be accepted

3. As to ground of appeal No. 7

Although the Defendant is also asserting that the exercise of Nonparty 1’s rights or the exchange contract of this case is not permissible or effective against the principle of good faith, the Defendant cannot find out circumstances to deem that Nonparty 1’s exercise of rights or the exchange contract of this case was against the principle of good faith, and therefore, it cannot accept the allegation as to the ground of appeal No. 7.

4. Conclusion

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 Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)