In a case where a lessor terminates a lease contract on the grounds that the deferred amount of rent of a lessee reaches the amount of two years of rent, whether the lessor may set up a defense against the sub-lessee by cancelling the lease contract only by notifying the sub-lessee of the grounds therefor (negative), and in such a case, the time at which the lease contract is terminated (=the time when the declaration of intention to

According to Articles 638(1) and 638(2) and 635(2) of the Civil Act, where a lease contract is terminated due to the notification of termination, if such lease contract is lawfully sub-leased, the lessor does not set up against the sub-lessee by termination unless he notifies the sub-lessee of the reason therefor. If the sub-lessee is notified of the termination, six months shall apply to the land, building and other structures; if the lessor is notified of the termination, one month shall apply to the lessor; and if the lessee is notified of the termination, five days shall take effect to the movable; however, if the lessor terminates the lease due to the delayed amount of rent of the lessee due to the basis of Article 640 of the Civil Act reaches the amount of rent of two years, the lessor may set up against the sub-lessee by termination even if he does not notify the sub-lessee of the reason thereof; and the lease relationship is terminated immediately after the declaration of intention of termination reaches the lessee.

Articles 635(2), 638(1) and (2), and 640 of the Civil Act

2. 2nd nautical miles (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Orien Seacom Co., Ltd. (LLC, Attorneys Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Na27485 Decided May 30, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to Articles 638(1) and 638(2) and 635(2) of the Civil Act, where a lease contract is terminated due to the notification of termination, if such lease contract is lawfully sub-leased, the lessor does not set up against the sub-lessee by termination unless he notifies the sub-lessee of the reason therefor. If the sub-lessee is notified of such termination, six months shall apply to the land, building and other structures; if the lessee is notified of such termination, one month shall apply to the lessee; and if the lessee is notified of such termination, five days shall take effect to the movable; however, if the lessor terminates the lease due to the delayed amount of rent of the lessee due to Article 640 of the Civil Act reaches the rent of two months, the lessor may set up against the sub-lessee by termination even if he does not notify the sub-lessee of the reason thereof; and immediately the declaration of such termination arrives with the lessee.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the termination of the lease contract of this case takes effect against the defendant for whom six months have passed after the former lessee's notification to the defendant pursuant to Article 638 of the Civil Code, and there is no illegality in the interpretation or application of Articles 638 and 640 of the Civil Code, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the agreement between the management body and the 2nd and third floors of the building in this case is not effective against the plaintiff, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, to the effect that "a set-off was conducted on the terms of surrender regarding the rent and management expenses incurred as of April 30, 201, and that "any obligation to pay to the management body what is the lessee of this case shall be referred to as the ground of appeal," and that the latter is recognized as not having any obligation to pay to the management body what is the nautical miles, which is the lessee of this case, shall not be recognized." There is no violation of the rules of evidence, etc. contrary to

3. Conclusion

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.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)