the deposit of part of the claim amount is valid as the deposit.

The amount equivalent to the monthly rent of the plaintiff et al. is a legitimate deposit for repayment of the obligation to return unjust enrichment for the two-month period when the plaintiff et al. deposited the monthly rent in the case of a claim for return of unjust enrichment.

Article 487 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da186 delivered on September 13, 1977

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Busan District Court (77Gahap499)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant received 1,400,000 won from the plaintiff, etc., and at the same time, the defendant ordered 1656 of table 1656 of table 12 and 13 square meters of 13 and 4 square meters of 2nd 4 square meters of 2nd 4th 4 square meters of 2nd 4th 4 square meters of 2nd 197 from June 29, 197 to the 140,000 won of 140 won of each month.

The remaining claims of the plaintiff et al. and the defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts, which shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc., and the remainder by the defendant.

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant ordered the plaintiff, etc. to order the construction of the order and pay the money according to the rate of 140,000 won each month from April 28, 187 to the completion of the above order.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

On January 28, 1976, the lease deposit for the Plaintiff et al. to the Defendant is KRW 1,400,000, monthly rent of KRW 140,000, and KRW 140,000, and for a period of one year. The fact that the Defendant occupied the building, and that the amount of monthly rent and rent of KRW 10,00 has been paid until April 28, 197, there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiffs, on the ground that the above lease contract was terminated due to the expiration of the term of validity of the above lease contract, the defendant argued that the plaintiff et al. could not object to the plaintiff et al. even though the defendant continued to use the building within a reasonable period after the expiration of the term of validity of the above lease contract, and that the above lease contract could not respond to the plaintiff et al.'s claim because of the lack of financial resources. First, as to whether the above lease contract was implicitly renewed, it is apparent that the term of this case's lease was expired as of January 28, 197, and the statement of Eul evidence 1 and the testimony of non-party 1 et al. of the court below are insufficient to find that the plaintiff et al. did not object to the plaintiff et al. for the possession and use of the leased object after the expiration of the term, and there is no other evidence to prove that the above lease contract was terminated by the defendant's testimony of non-party 2 of the court below, and that the plaintiff et al.'s assertion was rejected after the expiration of the term of the above 17 days.

In other words, the defendant defense that the plaintiff et al. could not respond to the plaintiff et al.'s request for the evacuation of the building of this case until the plaintiff et al. receives the lease deposit of this case. Since the plaintiff et al. re-claimed that the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case was extinguished by due repayment deposit, if the lease contract of this case is terminated due to the expiration of the term as in the above case, the obligation to return the lease of this case and the obligation to return the lease deposit of the tenant shall be deemed to be a simultaneous performance relationship. Therefore, the above defendant's defense is reasonable. On April 4, 197, 197, according to the evidence evidence No. 2 of this case, the plaintiff et al. deposited KRW 1,260,000 after deducting the amount of monthly rent of 1,400,000 won which the defendant delayed from the deposit of this case until the above deposit of this case, and there is no reason to prove that the defendant's deposit of this case has no effect as part of the above claim.

Furthermore, as seen above, the plaintiff et al. seeks compensation for damages incurred by the defendant's possession of the building or return of unjust enrichment, and even after the expiration of the above lease contract, the plaintiff et al. may refuse the order of the building until the defendant receives the return of the lease deposit. However, since the defendant's possession and use of the building cannot be deemed to have the right to occupy and use the building. Thus, the defendant's possession and use of the building cannot be deemed to have the right to occupy and use the building. The plaintiff et al. suffered damages from the equivalent amount. Thus, the above defendant's profit is unfair profit and is obliged to return it to the plaintiff et al., and according to the facts recognized above, the rent equivalent to the monthly rent of the building in this case is recognized to have been 140,000 won and there is no counter-proof.

As a defense to the effect that the Defendant deposited monthly rent up to June 28, 197 and returned unjust enrichment up to the time, the Defendant’s payment of the monthly rent up to June 28, 197 to the return of the said unjust enrichment, if the Defendant collected the entire purport of the party’s pleading from the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant paid 140,000 won to the Plaintiff, etc. on May 11, 1977 and June 7, 197, but it was recognized that the Plaintiff, etc. refused to receive it and deposited 140,000 won each of the said dates on the same day, and the Plaintiff, etc. sought a return of unjust enrichment of 140,000 won each month to the Defendant in this case, and the record clearly shows that the above repayment deposit is a legitimate public action as to the return of unjust enrichment for 2 months.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to receive money of KRW 1,400,00 from the plaintiff, etc. and order this building and pay money of KRW 140,000 per month from June 29, 197 to the completion of the above order. Thus, the plaintiff, etc.'s claim of the plaintiff, etc.'s principal claim shall be accepted within the scope recognized above and the remainder shall be dismissed automatically. Since the original judgment is unfair in some conclusion, it is so unfair, it is modified as stated in Paragraph 2 of this Article. The remaining claims of the plaintiffs and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed as without merit, and with respect to the burden of litigation costs, Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the declaration of provisional execution. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 199 of the same Act.

Judges Kim Ho-young (Presiding Judge)