beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant, who succeeded to the lessor’s status, was liable to pay KRW 30,891,297 unpaid lease deposit to the Plaintiff, the lessee, and that the Defendant agreed to deduct KRW 30,891,297 equivalent to the unpaid rent, etc., prior to acquiring the ownership of the building of this case from the lease deposit, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the submitted evidence alone is difficult to acknowledge
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the facts regarding the establishment of an agreement or implied agreement, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3
A. Since a lease deposit guarantees all the lessee’s obligations arising from the lease after the termination of the lease contract until the lease is delivered to the lessor, the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the lease deposit without any separate declaration of intention when the object is returned after the termination of the lease contract.
Therefore, in cases where a transferee of a leased building is obliged to refund a lease deposit to a lessee due to the termination of a lease relationship after acquiring the ownership of the building, the overdue rent or management fee, etc. incurred prior to succession to the lessor’s status is naturally deducted from the lease deposit even if the transferee did not meet the requirements for the transfer of claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da218874, Mar. 22, 2017). This is naturally deducted from the lease deposit received.
The same shall also apply to the case where there was a seizure and collection order concerning the rent claim.
Supreme Court Decision 23 December 23, 2004