Whether the lessee is liable to pay the lease to the supplier of the leased object if the user of the leased object refuses to accept the leased object without any justifiable reason and fails to issue the receipt of the leased object (affirmative)

In a case where a lessee of a leased object refuses to inspect and take over the leased object without any justifiable reason and fails to issue the receipt of the object, it is reasonable to deem that the supplier of the leased object fulfills his/her obligations to the leasing company in light of the principle of good faith. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the lessee is obliged to pay the price to the supplier of the leased object in accordance with the contract for sale and purchase of the leased object.

Articles 2 and 536(1) of the Civil Act

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

Hosung Machinery Industry Co., Ltd.

Hanil Finance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ji-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na51710 delivered on April 6, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records and reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant purchased the lease machinery of this case from the plaintiff on November 26, 1996 at 30 million won (excluding value-added tax) and entered into a contract for sale and purchase of this case to deliver it to the non-party 30 million won until June 30, 1997, and paid 120 million won of the down payment on December 3, 1996. The remaining amount is delivered and the non-party 1 did not have an obligation to receive goods in the form prescribed by the defendant when it inspected the machinery and submitted to the defendant. The court below's decision that the non-party 1 purchased the machinery of this case from the plaintiff on November 26, 1996 and completed the manufacturing of the machinery of this case on March 10, 197 and that the non-party 1 did not have an obligation to receive the machinery of this case to the non-party 4 and the non-party 1's request for the delivery of the machinery of this case to the plaintiff 10.

2. According to the records, when a cause falling under any of the following subparagraphs occurs to the plaintiff or the non-party company, the defendant may cancel or terminate this contract without notification. (1) Even if any of the provisions of this contract is violated, (2) when a disposition of suspension of business or closure of a clearing house is issued, when a resolution of dissolution is made, (3) when a disposition of suspension of business or closure is made, (4) when an application for provisional attachment, provisional disposition, provisional attachment, seizure, request for auction, bankruptcy, settlement or commencement of company reorganization is made, (6) when an application for commencement of business or commencement of company reorganization procedures is made, and (3) when the plaintiff is deemed unable to complete the manufacture of the goods because it is difficult to continue business activities, and (6) when the non-party company refused the takeover of the machinery of this case on April 1997 and is currently in process of corporate reorganization after being in bankruptcy process after being notified to the plaintiff on January 26, 1998, the defendant did not know that the non-party company had not completed the contract of this case.

In full view of Article 2(3) of the above contract (if the plaintiff delivers goods to the non-party company at the place where the contract is made and the lease is commenced at the same time as the payment of the balance, the defendant shall pay the balance to the plaintiff if the non-party company inspects the goods and submits a certificate of receipt of goods in the form prescribed by the defendant to the defendant) and Article 7 of the above contract, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant, who is subject to the cancellation and termination of the contract for sale and purchase under the above Article 7, received the certificate of receipt of goods from the non-party company and made an agreement that is possible only before the lease begins (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da6193, Nov. 14, 1997). As seen above, in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant had already been issued a certificate of receipt of goods in accordance with the principle of good faith before the notification of the cancellation is given

The reasoning of the court below is somewhat different, but it is just in its conclusion rejecting the defendant's argument that the defendant is not obligated to pay the balance as the defendant rescinded the contract of this case under the reservation clause of the right to cancel the contract of this case under Article 7 of the above contract, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the lease contract of this case and the right to cancel the contract of this case.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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 on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)