Whether a lessee may refuse to pay the price to the supplier of the goods on the ground that the lessee, who knows that the leased goods were supplied but the user did not deliver the receipt of the goods without good cause (negative)

In the case of facility leasing (lease), if the user directly negotiates with the supplier of the goods to determine the terms and conditions of the contract, such as the type, size, quantity, price, and period of delivery of the goods, the lessee shall enter into a contract for the supply of the goods, such as a sales contract, with the supplier in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract determined as above, the supplier shall directly deliver the goods to the user, and the lessee shall pay the user the price of the goods in receipt of the certificate of receipt of the goods. As such, the lessee is to clarify the starting date of the lease period in relation to the supplier. In relation to the supplier, if the lessee is aware that the goods have been supplied even if no certificate of receipt of the goods has been issued and that the user has not issued the certificate of receipt of the goods without good cause, the lessee shall not refuse the payment of the goods based on no certificate of receipt of the goods in light of the concept of fairness and good faith.

Article 536(1) of the Civil Act, Article 46 subparag. 19 of the Commercial Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Equipment Rental Business Act

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

Bowsan Co., Ltd.

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

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na32606 delivered on December 23, 1997

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

In the case of a facility lease, if a user directly negotiates with a supplier of an object to determine terms and conditions of a contract, such as the type, size, quantity, price, and period of delivery of an object, the lessee shall enter into a contract for the supply of the object, such as a sales contract, and the supplier shall directly deliver the object to the user in such contract, and the lessee shall pay the user the price of the object in receipt of the receipt of the receipt of the object. As such, the reason why the lessee receives the receipt from the user is to clarify the starting date of the lease in relation to the user. In relation to the supplier, the supplier is to obtain proof that the supply of the object was properly performed in accordance with the contract for the supply of the object (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da6193, Nov. 14, 1997). Thus, if the lessee knows that there was no delivery of the object and that the user did not deliver the receipt of the object without any justifiable reason, the lessee shall not refuse the delivery of the object in light of the concept of the good faith.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence revealed in the oral argument of this case, the defendant purchased the leased article of this case from the plaintiff on September 30, 1996 to receive 165,00,000 won and paid 66,00,000 won as down payment within four months after the order. The remainder is delivered to the delivery place of the leased article to the non-party Sam Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the "non-party Co., Ltd."), the lessee, and the non-party Co., Ltd., (hereinafter the "non-party Co., Ltd.") and submitted a certificate of receipt of the prescribed form to the defendant. The plaintiff delivered the leased article on March 6, 1997 to the original factory of the non-party Co., Ltd., and notified the non-party Co., Ltd. to the effect that the non-party Co., Ltd. refused to deliver the remainder to the defendant on the grounds that it could not request the plaintiff to deliver the remaining delivery of the article without any justifiable reason for extension.

Although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat different, the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay the leased object price is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no illegality in finding facts contrary to the disposal document or in misunderstanding the legal principles of the lease contract. Therefore, the grounds of appeal

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)