2018Da207427 Return of deposit

A

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

B

Law Firm Seopyeong, Attorney Seo-yeong et al.

[Defendant-Appellant]

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Na57691 Decided December 21, 2017

October 4, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

1) On November 30, 2013, between F and F on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) under which the Plaintiff leases the instant commercial building owned by the Defendant from December 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017, on a lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million (Additional Tax Map).

2) Article 9(2) of the instant lease agreement provides that “The lessee shall return the deposit to the lessee at the time of termination of the contract, but the amount shall be the amount calculated by deducting all the obligations of the lessee arising from the lease, such as the overdue management expenses, etc.,” and Article 12 provides that “In the case of relocation to a commercial building or a commercial building adjacent to the commercial building located in the site constructed after the establishment of the building due to a special agreement, the right of priority shall be guaranteed to the present lessee, and the lessor shall bear the expenses incurred in the art. 10 million won for the current building.”

3) Around December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff paid to F, representing the Defendant and the Defendant, a sum of KRW 50 million, including KRW 10 million, and KRW 10 million, and was handed over the instant commercial building around that time. (4) The Plaintiff agreed to terminate the instant rental contract with the Defendant, and transferred the instant commercial building to the Defendant, and then transferred the instant commercial building to a new neighboring building on December 31, 2014. The Plaintiff did not pay a monthly rent while the instant commercial building was handed over.

B. The lower court determined as follows based on the foregoing facts.

1) Since the instant lease agreement provides that the lease deposit is KRW 50 million, and the lease deposit shall be returned at the time of termination of the contract by the lessor, it is not a premium that the Plaintiff paid, but a lease deposit that the Defendant has to return at the time of termination of the contract.

2) Although the instant lease agreement provides that monthly rent is KRW 1.5 million, according to F and I’s testimony, there was an agreement that the Defendant would not receive a monthly rent as stipulated in the instant lease agreement until the prescription issued by H Hospital would be 60 cases a day, and it is recognized that the prescription issued by H Hospital does not exceed 60 cases a day until the agreement on the instant lease agreement is concluded. Thus, there is no rent that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 50 million for lease deposit and KRW 10 million for human test expenses arising from the transfer of the pharmacy and KRW 50 million for lease deposit and KRW 10 million for delay payment.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below on monthly rent for the following reasons.

A. As long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the content of the document. In a dispute over the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties concerned, where interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposal document becomes an issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the document in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002; 2010Da58728, May 1

B. Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below and the following circumstances revealed through the records in light of the above legal principles, the testimony of F and I, unlike the contents of the instant lease agreement, cannot be deemed as a clear and acceptable counter-proof to acknowledge that there was a separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to exempt the monthly rent according to the number of prescriptions issued by H Hospital. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is liable to pay 1.5 million won as the monthly rent to the Defendant, such as the written lease agreement of this case.

1) Unlike the entry of the instant lease agreement in the original judgment on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and F, who prepared the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant, stated to the effect that “in the original judgment, KRW 50 million was not a lease deposit, but a kind of premium for K pharmacy, and that no monthly rent was paid until the prescription issued by H Hospital is 60 cases a day.” However, there is no reasonable ground to support the fact-finding by adopting only the portion of the statement that there was a separate agreement to exempt KRW 50 million from monthly rent according to the number of prescriptions issued by the hospital, instead of denying the said statement.

2) 1, which introduced the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff at the lower court, stated to the effect that: (a) as stated in the instant lease agreement, KRW 50 million was returned at the time of termination of the contract; (b) monthly rent was not paid until this day’s prescription was 60 items per day; (c) however, as the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s seat, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s statement is in fact the Plaintiff’s assertion as it is.

3) The instant lease agreement stipulates in detail the security deposit, monthly rent, management fee, term of lease, grounds for termination of the contract, obligation at the time of termination of the contract, etc. In particular, as there are separate special agreements on the burden of expenses for interior, if there exists a separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to exempt the Plaintiff from the monthly rent according to the number of prescriptions issued by H Hospital, such agreement should have been explicitly stipulated in the instant lease agreement, as long as the main contents of the lease agreement are substantially changed.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the deduction of rent by deeming that there was a separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant would not receive monthly rent until the prescription issued by H Hospital was 60 cases a day, unlike the instant lease agreement, which is a disposal document based only on F and I’s testimony. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of disposal documents and the interpretation of legal acts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Gin-soo