굿젠 주식회사 (소송대리인 법무법인 수호 담당변호사 김도윤)

Medical Corporations Korea Medical Foundation (Attorney Lee Jae-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

August 31, 2018

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gahap575350 Decided May 11, 2018

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 74,613,382 won and 58,152,092 won with 6% per annum from December 31, 2016 to October 26, 2018, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are all dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 20% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the movable property listed in the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “instant equipment”), and shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment. The Defendant shall pay the amount calculated at the rate of 700,000 won per annum from January 16, 2015 to the day of completion of delivery of the instant equipment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,000,000 won with the interest of 15% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, and shall pay to the plaintiff 7,00,000 won per annum from January 1, 2017 to the day of completion of delivery of the equipment of this case.

B. Defendant

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant regarding the claim for damages due to the minimum purchase quantity shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation portion shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

Among the judgment of the court of first instance that appealed by the plaintiff, the part concerning the repair cost claim for the instant equipment, the part concerning the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, and the part concerning the claim for damages due to the failure to meet the minimum purchase quantity among the judgment of first instance that the defendant appealed is subject

2. Basic facts

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. Determination on the repair cost claim and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the instant equipment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the failure of the instant equipment is caused by negligence in the use of the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of the instant equipment KRW 20,000,000, and damages for delay.

(2) Since the Defendant continues to possess and use the instant equipment even after the termination of the instant contract, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2017, after the date following the termination date of the instant contract, until the delivery of the instant equipment.

B. Determination

(1) As to the part on the repair cost claim

(A) In a lease agreement, a lessor is obligated to maintain conditions necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object while the lease is in existence (hereinafter “leased’s duty to repair”). Thus, barring any special circumstance, a lessor is obligated to repair the leased object to the extent that it would interfere with the lessee’s use and profit-making of the leased object according to the purpose determined by the contract unless it is repaired in the event that the leased object is destroyed or damaged. Such lessor’s duty to repair is recognized to the extent necessary for the lessee to use and profit-making of the leased object according to the purpose of the lease, barring any special circumstance, and thus, whether it constitutes interference with the use and profit-making of the leased object constitutes interference with the lessor’s use and profit-making of the leased object shall be determined by social norms by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the type and use of the leased object, the scale and degree of damage or impairment of the leased object, the degree of impact on the use and profit-making of the leased object, whether it is easy to repair it, expenses required therefor, and the state and rent at the time of the lease (see, etc.).

(B) The Plaintiff’s lease of the instant equipment from January 16, 2015 to December 31, 2016, upon setting the monthly rent of KRW 700,000 for the instant equipment, and the lease period from January 16, 2015 to December 31, 2016, does not conflict between the parties. Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s failure in the instant equipment around June 20, 2016 while the Defendant was using the instant equipment upon delivery, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to recover the instant equipment from the Plaintiff around November 1, 2016, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant equipment would be recovered to the Defendant around November 2, 2016, including the Plaintiff’s estimate from November 1, 2016 to October 1, 2016, the Plaintiff did not recover the equipment at its expense.

According to the above facts, if the breakdown of the instant equipment is not repaired, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, a lessor, bears the duty of repair as the lessor, as it is sufficient to prevent the lessee from using and gaining profit from the instant equipment according to the purpose stipulated in the instant contract.

Furthermore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to prove that the failure occurred in the instant equipment due to the Defendant’s negligence while using the equipment, or that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to bear the repair cost of the instant equipment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for repair cost cannot be accepted.

(2) As to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

In order for the return of unjust enrichment to mean the substantial benefit. As such, in a case where a lessee continued to possess the object even after the lease contract relationship is terminated, but it did not obtain substantial benefit because the lessee did not use or make profit according to the original purpose of the lease contract, the lessee’s return of unjust enrichment is not established even if the lessor incurred loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da6497, May 29, 198).

According to the above facts, although the Defendant continued to possess the instant equipment even after the termination of the instant contract, it can be seen that the Defendant did not use or profit from the instant equipment according to its original purpose due to the breakdown of the instant equipment. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment cannot be accepted.

4. Determination on the claim for damages due to the below minimum purchase quantity

The reasoning for this part is as follows, except that part of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2-A) is modified as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○, No. 7 of the first instance judgment, “No. 17” of the 8th instance judgment, shall be written with “No. 17 and No. 10.”

○○ Decision 15,936T, each of the 13th and 16th of the 7th judgment of the first instance, has been put into practice with "15,168T".

The part of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., from 16th to 20th judgment, "the defendant has a strong interest."

“Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for losses of KRW 27,462,00 [27,60T x (27,600 x (27,600 - KRW 6,600 per T manufacturing cost - KRW 5,605), 15,856,320 [15,936T x 6,600 per T manufacturing cost - KRW 5,605 per T manufacturing cost)], which is the difference between the Plaintiff’s operating profit that the Plaintiff gained when the Plaintiff sold 27,60T, the minimum purchase volume in 2016, and 27,600T].

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff violated the obligation to transfer the transaction partner to the defendant under the contract of this case, and thereby, the defendant did not bear liability for damages because he purchased chips below the minimum purchase quantity from the plaintiff.

According to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 9, the plaintiff agreed to transfer the business partners related to the inspection business to the defendant at the time of the contract of this case, and accordingly, it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred about 30 business partners to the defendant. Thus, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

○ The 7th parallel between the last parallel and the fourth parallel in the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

“4) Sub-resolutions

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages amounting to 58,152,092 won (the damages amounting to 5,384,940 won + KRW 41,161,472 + KRW 11,605,680) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act, from December 31, 2016, which is the date of an appellate judgment, which is the date of an appellate judgment to October 26, 2018, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to pay damages to the plaintiff, from the next day to the date of full payment."

5. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, 74,613,382 won (the rent of KRW 16,461,290 from January 16, 2015 to December 31, 2016 + damages of KRW 58,152,092), 58,152,092, interest rate of KRW 6% per annum from December 31, 2016 to October 26, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Since the defendant is obligated to deliver the equipment of this case, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.

Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding monetary payment is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the defendant in excess of the above recognized amount shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked amount shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal and the remaining appeal by the defendant are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ori-man (Presiding Judge)

1) On August 8, 2018, the Defendant brought a reduction in the purport of appeal by asserting that only the claim for damages arising out of the minimum number of purchase in the judgment of the first instance would be brought against the person who is not a party to the legal brief.