(a) Nature of the deposit for lease of a building;

(b) Scope of validity of an assignment order on the claim for return of building lease deposit;

A. In the case of a building lease, the lessee’s right to claim the return of the deposit for the remainder of the lease is created on the condition that the lessor guarantees not only the rent during the lease term, but also all the claims owed by the lessor against the lessee up to the fulfillment of the obligation of the name of the building, and the remainder of the lease is deducted from all the secured obligations when ordering the lessor to do so after the completion of the lease.

B. Even in cases where an assignment order has been issued with the lease deposit as the whole claim, a lessor, a garnishee, may oppose all creditors on the grounds that he/she could oppose the lessee, and even if the assignment order takes effect by the delivery thereof, even if the above lease deposit becomes effective, the assignment order is valid only for the balance remaining after the lessor’s claim was deducted.

A. Article 618 of the Civil Act; Article 563 and Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 87Da68 delivered on July 9, 1986. Supreme Court Decision 76Da1032 delivered on August 24, 1976. Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1696 delivered on November 22, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 64Da864 delivered on November 24, 1964.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 86Na1208 delivered on May 7, 1987

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the third party obligor in the assignment order can oppose all creditors only on the ground that the third party obligor had arisen from the obligor company to the time of the delivery of the assignment order, and that the subsequent ground cannot be set up against the obligee. The court below held that even in the case of this case where the entire claim is the claim for return of lease deposit in the simultaneous performance relationship with the obligation for return of the object at the time of the termination of the building lease contract, the scope of the claim such as overdue rent, etc. set off against the obligation for return of lease deposit

In the lease of a building, the deposit for lease is not only the rent during the lease term, but also the damage claim incurred until the name of the building is fulfilled, and the lessor guarantees all the claims owed by the lessee under the lease contract, such as the damage claim for the lease term until the lease term is fulfilled, and on the condition that there is a balance remaining after deducting all the secured obligations, such as overdue rent, etc., when ordering the lessor to the lease after the lease term, the lessee's right to claim the remainder is created, and even if an assignment order is issued with the lease deposit with the entire claim of the lease deposit, the lessor, the third obligor, may set up against the obligee for

Therefore, even if an assignment order on the claim to return a building lease deposit takes effect by the delivery thereof, the above claim to return a lease deposit is a condition subsequent to the cancellation of the lessor's claim, and the assignment order is valid only for the balance remaining after the lessor's claim is deducted. (See Supreme Court Decision 76Da1032 delivered on August 24, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 64Da864 delivered on November 24, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 87Da68 delivered on June 9, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Da68 delivered on June 9, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da10990 delivered on August 24, 200). However, the court below decided that the scope of set-off against the claim to return the lease deposit is limited to the claim such as arrears which was set-off by the time the assignment order is delivered, and it cannot be set-off against the third obligor in the assignment order that is the entire claim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)