(a) Where a lessor fails to fulfill his/her duty to return a deposit after the expiration of the lease contract, whether the lessee has the duty to compensate for losses incurred by possession of the object or obligation to return unjust enrichment;

(b) The case holding that it cannot be new that both parties to a lease contract have an obligation to pay the lessor the amount of money in the rent deposit to the lessor on the ground that the lessee’s duty to specify only the lessee’s building name and the obligation to pay the rent to the named city while settling a settlement prior to filing a lawsuit, and that the lessee cannot be deemed to have an obligation to pay the lessor the amount of money in the rent deposit with no consideration

A. Since a lessor’s obligation to return a deposit and a lessee’s obligation to return an object after the expiration of the lease agreement are concurrently performed, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, the lessor is not an illegal possession, and thus, the lessee is not liable to compensate for damages, and the lessee is not liable to return unjust enrichment if he/she does not have any profit accrued from his/her possession.

(b) The case holding that in order for both parties to a lease contract to clarify the problem of reputation after the expiration of the lease term, only the lessee's duty to specify the lessee's name of the building and the obligation to pay the rent to the name city, and on the ground that the lessor's duty, such as the return of deposit, etc., is not mentioned, and thus, the lessee cannot be viewed as a duty to pay the lessor the rent with the amount of money equivalent to the rent, without considering specific legal relations surrounding the lessee's possession.

a.B.Article 536 and Article 618 of the Civil Code; Article 741 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu4298 decided Oct. 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1784) (Gong1989, 1784) (Gong1991, 590) 91Da45202, 45219 decided Apr. 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1589)

Plaintiff 1 and one other plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and four others

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na43089 delivered on August 20, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Inasmuch as a lessor’s obligation to return a lessor’s deposit and a lessee’s obligation to return an object after the expiration of the lease term is a simultaneous performance relationship, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, the lessor’s obligation to return the leased object is not an illegal possession, and thus, the lessee is not liable to compensate for damages, and the lessee is not liable to return unjust enrichment if the lessee does not gain profit from his possession. Thus, as determined by the court below, in order to clarify the intention of the lease after the expiration of the lease term, the both parties stated only the lessee’s duty to specify the lessee’s building name and the lessee’s obligation to pay rent to the name city, and unless otherwise specified in the lessor’s obligation, such as the return of the lessor’s deposit, etc., it cannot be said that the lessee’s obligation to pay the amount of money equivalent to the lease to the lessor, without considering the specific legal relationship surrounding the lessee’s possession.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in rejecting the defendants' assertion that there is no obligation to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the rent for the period of the lawsuit (from March 26, 1989 to the execution of life order) after the lease term of this case was expired, since the possession of the leased building (the plaintiffs) was not illegal possession, and there is no substantial benefit due to the fire of the leased building, and there is no profit for the plaintiffs to use or make profits from it, and therefore there is no return of unjust enrichment. Therefore, it is reasonable to reject the defendants' assertion that the plaintiffs seeking deduction of the amount equivalent to the rent for the above period. In this case, in light of the above, the defendants can cause the delayed performance by providing the repayment obligation after the expiration of the lease term of this case, and there is a method of immediately executing their name by the telephone protocol, it does not appear that the defendants damage the lessor's trust in relation to legal stability due to the damage to the telephone of this case.

As pointed out in the judgment of the court below, there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the complaint telephone protocol. There is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)