Whether a lessee's obligation related to the profit from use, such as management fees, water supply fees, electricity charges, etc. incurred for the use or profit-making of the leased object falls under the lessee's obligation guaranteed by the deposit for lease (affirmative in principle)

Article 618 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision (Chuncheon) 2011Na1939 decided February 1, 2012

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against Defendant 2 are assessed against the same Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

The court below rejected Defendant 1’s assertion that the unpaid amount should be deducted from the lease deposit of this case’s claim for return of the Plaintiff out of the electricity charges that occurred during the period from August 2009 to January 18, 2010 after the Plaintiff leased the instant her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

In a lease agreement, the security deposit for lease guarantees all the obligations of the lessee with respect to the lease arising from the lease after the termination of the lease agreement until the delivery to the lessor. Therefore, the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the security deposit, barring any special circumstance, when the object is returned after the termination of the lease agreement. Therefore, the lessor is obligated to return only the remainder after deducting the secured obligation from the security deposit to the lessee. In addition, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the lessee has agreed otherwise in the lease agreement, for the use and profit-making of the object, the obligation related to the management expenses, water supply charges, electricity charges, etc. incurred for the use and profit-making of the object shall be deemed as the obligation of the lessee secured by the security deposit due to the nature of the lease agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8323, Sept. 28, 2005).

In addition, according to the record, the name of the customer is indicated as Defendant 1 on the “General Information Contents” issued by the Korea Electric Power Corporation, which is the operator of the electric power supply business for the instant cartels, as of November 25, 201, and the electric use contract for the instant cartels is indicated as terminated on January 18, 2010, etc., and in relation to the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the person liable for the payment of the electric charges used in the instant cartels can be inferred as Defendant 1 (see evidence 6, 524, the record).

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 1, a lessor, is obligated to pay the above Defendant the amount equivalent to the electric utility fee incurred during the use and profit-making of the franchise of this case, regardless of whether Defendant 1 actually paid the above electric utility fee to the Korea Electric Power Corporation. This is a debt guaranteed by the lease deposit of this case for which the Plaintiff seeks return, which is the object of the contract after the termination of the lease relationship, should be naturally deducted from the security deposit when the franchise of this case is returned.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s rejection of Defendant 1’s above assertion solely on the grounds as seen earlier is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to deposit in the lease relationship, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to deem that the instant sales contract constituted a fraudulent act detrimental to Defendant 1’s creditors, including the Plaintiff, on the premise that Defendant 1 had been in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into the instant sales contract with Defendant 2, and to reject it on the ground that there is insufficient proof as to Defendant 2’s bona fide defense. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the good faith of the beneficiary in a fraudulent act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal by Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by Defendant 2 are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)