The case holding that, in case where the lessee continues to possess only the object of sub-lease without using or making profits from the sub-lease after the expiration of the sub-lease period, even if there is a special agreement that the sub-lease bears the management expenses under the sub-lease contract, it is difficult to interpret that this special agreement applies even after the expiration of the sub-lease period, and since the "expenses of the management expenses" are jointly borne by the lessee, it is difficult to view that the lessee is liable to pay the expenses unless the lessee actually uses or makes profits from the store, in light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that it is difficult to interpret that the sub-lease bears the expenses even after the expiration of the sublease period

[1] Articles 536, 618, and 629 of the Civil Act

Ear civil house

Mansungs

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Na13341 Delivered on December 7, 2004

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

On November 6, 2001, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, on the part of the plaintiff, deposited only part of the original unit while keeping the store of this case until June 5, 2002 after paying the rent and management fee until the expiration of the sub-lease period, and sub-lease one year, and that the plaintiff, the lessee, as a special agreement, agreed to pay the lessee the lease fee and the expenses necessary for the maintenance and management of the market environment (hereinafter referred to as the "management fee") to be paid to the tenant, the lessee, as the special agreement. The defendant paid the lessee the sub-lease deposit to the plaintiff and used the store of this case until June 5, 2002, and the defendant did not do so under the premise that the payment of the rent and management fee of this case was not made from June 26, 200 to the expiration of the sub-lease period due to the failure to use or make profits in accordance with the original purpose of the sub-lease contract even after the expiration of the sub-lease period.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the defendant is obliged to pay the management expenses to the time the store of this case is ordered after the expiration of the sub-lease period.

If the defendant continues to use or make profits from the store in this case without paying the deposit after the expiration of the sub-lease period, it is difficult to interpret that the special agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant applies to the defendant to pay the management expenses under the sub-lease contract after the expiration of the sub-lease period, and the "expenses" out of the management expenses are jointly borne by the lessees and are the same as the joint electricity, water and personnel expenses are equally borne by the lessees, and it can be viewed that it is the premise that the defendant bears the obligation to pay the expenses unless the store in this case is actually used or made profits from the store. As long as the sub-lease has been completed, it is difficult for the defendant to assume the obligation to pay the expenses unless the store in this case is actually used or made profits, the lease fees out of the management expenses shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the lessee in the original lease contract, and after the expiration of the sub-lease period, the obligation to return the unjust profits from the defendant's possession after the expiration of the sub-lease period is not established, and as long as the deposit has yet to be paid by the defendant at the expiration of the sub-lease period.

Therefore, the court below's order to reject the defendant's simultaneous performance defense and to pay the amount equivalent to the management expenses to the name city by deducting the management expenses from the deposit to the name city after the expiration of the sub-lease period, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the sub-lease's obligations to be deducted from the sub-lease deposit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, 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.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)