Plaintiff (Law Firm Effica, Attorney Park Tae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

may 12, 2020

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Da52112 Decided November 8, 2018

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from February 18, 2017 to July 7, 2020, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 25% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 13,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from April 16, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s reasoning is the same as the reasoning of Paragraph (1) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the second and third parties of the first instance judgment form “the defendant” as “the plaintiff.”

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The reasoning of this part is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s reasoning is the same as Article 420(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding “The instant lease agreement is terminated or terminated on the ground that there was a change of circumstances in the important part where the lease agreement in this case is valid even if it is not maintained as above; and (b) it is the same as Article 420(a) of the Civil Procedure Act.”

3. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion, such as cancellation and cancellation

The reasoning of this Court is that the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Determination on the assertion of cancellation or termination on the grounds of change in circumstances

1) A contract may be rescinded or terminated on the grounds of change of circumstances as an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where the circumstances underlying the basis of contract formation are clearly changed, and the parties could not have foreseen at the time the contract formation was concluded, and thereby maintaining the contract as it is would cause serious imbalance to the interests of the parties or would not achieve the purpose of the contract formation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da249557, Jun. 8, 2017).

2) 우선, 원고와 피고 사이에 이 사건 임대차계약이 체결되었음은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 임대차보증금을 누가 지급하였는지 여부를 불문하고 원고는 위 임대차계약의 당사자로서 피고에 대하여 보증금의 반환 등을 구할 수 있다고 할 것이다. 나아가 위 1)항의 법리에 더하여 위에서 거시된 증거들과 갑 제13, 14호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 영상, 당심의 현장검증결과를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고와 피고는 이 사건 사업을 위한 견본주택 건축을 목적으로 임대차계약을 체결하였고, 이 사건 임대차계약서에도 특약사항으로 위 목적이 명시되었는바 이는 임대차계약에 있어 매우 중요한 사항이라고 판단되는 점, ② 피고는 이 사건 사업을 추진하던 ○○마을 지주공동사업 추진위원회의 추진위원으로서 이 사건 사업의 진행 내용 등에 대하여 잘 알고 있었으므로, 견본주택이 건축이 되지 않을 경우 원고가 이 사건 토지를 사용할 이유가 없다는 것을 임대차계약 당시부터 인식하고 있었다고 판단되는 점, ③ 그런데 원고는 용인시장으로부터 2016. 4. 21. 가설건축물 축조신고 반려통보를 받고, 2016. 8. 8. 주택사업계획승인신청 반려통보를 받음으로써 이 사건 토지 지상에 견본주택을 건축할 수 없게 되었고, 피고도 그 무렵 이 사건 토지에 견본주택을 건축할 수 없다는 것을 알게 된 점, ④ 게다가 임대인은 목적물을 사용, 수익에 적당한 상태를 갖추어 임차인에게 인도하여야 할 뿐만 아니라 계약존속 중에도 그 사용, 수익에 필요한 상태를 유지하게 할 의무를 부담하는데( 민법 제623조 ), 이 사건 토지는 이 사건 임대차계약 체결 당시부터 현재까지 소외인(피고와 용인시 기흥구 (주소 생략) 번지 토지에 관하여 임대차계약을 체결한 사람으로 보인다)이 무단으로 점유하면서 샷시 제조를 위한 임시가설물 설치, 각종 자재 보관 용도로 사용하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 견본주택 건축은 이 사건 임대차계약의 성립의 기초가 된 사정으로 인정되고, 견본주택을 건축할 수 없어 원고가 임대차계약을 체결한 목적을 달성할 수 없고 피고가 원고에 이 사건 토지를 사용·수익 가능한 상태로 인도한 것으로 볼 수도 없는 이상 이 사건 임대차계약을 그대로 유지하는 것은 원고와 피고 사이에 중대한 불균형을 초래하는 경우에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다.

3) Meanwhile, according to Gap evidence No. 7-1, around February 13, 2017, the plaintiff was merged to wait for the defendant on February 17, 2017, which is the date promised with the defendant, but it was notified in writing to the defendant. In order to establish a promotion center necessary for the project of this case, in order to build a promotion center necessary for the project of this case, there was an agreement with KRW 100 million per annum and KRW 330 million per annum, but it is acknowledged that the construction of the promotion center cannot be executed upon receipt of the notice, and it was sent by content-certified mail to the effect that the return of the deposit should be demanded as agreed with the defendant on February 1, 2017. According to the above recognition, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was lawfully terminated the lease contract of this case as the intention to cancel the lease contract of this case to the future after February 17, 2017.

4) Therefore, upon the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,000,000 as well as the amount of KRW 30,000 on a yearly lease from February 18, 2017 to July 7, 2020, which is the date following the termination of the lease agreement, the Defendant’s dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment (Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought the return of KRW 30,00,000,000 on the grounds of the cancellation of the lease agreement, but the Plaintiff did not seek the return of KRW 30,000,000 on a yearly lease in 20,000,000 per annum, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed due to the lack of reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, the part against the plaintiff who ordered the above payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the payment order shall be ordered to the defendant, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff

Judges Kang Tae-hun (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)