(a) The extent of damage or disability of the leased object which the lessor is liable for repair;

B. An interpretation of the scope of repair obligation where a lessor does not specify the scope of repair obligation exempted under a special contract for exemption from repair obligation

A. In a lease agreement, a lessor is obligated to maintain conditions necessary for the use and profit-making of the object while the lease agreement is in existence. Therefore, in the event of a damage or impairment to the object, the lessor is not obligated to repair if it is so minor that the lessee can easily and easily repair the object without separate expenses, and it does not interfere with the lessee’s use and profit-making. However, if it is not repaired, the lessor is obligated to repair the object unless it is repaired to the extent that the lessee can not use and profit-making the object according to the purpose determined by the contract.

(b)‘A lessor’s duty of repair may be exempted by a special agreement or may be borne by the lessee, but it is reasonable to interpret that the lessor is still obliged to repair unless there are special circumstances such as where the scope of the repair obligation is specified in such special agreement, or where the lessee is discharged from the repair obligation by such special agreement, it is limited to a small-scale repair such as repair of damage which may normally arise, such as large-scale repair such as repair of large-scale damage, large-scale repair of the main constituent parts of the building, large-scale replacement of the basic constituent parts, etc., but still the lessor is obliged to repair.

Article 623 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), Attorney Jin-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant)

Defendant Lessee (Attorney Jin-Counterclaim)

Daegu High Court Decision 93Na3258, 93Na3265 delivered on June 16, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the second and third grounds for appeal

The court below, based on evidence cooking as stated in its reasoning, found that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter the Plaintiff) was considerably worn out since January 15, 1991 from the time when the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Plaintiff), but the Plaintiff leased the pipes and boiler facilities to operate the said facilities. However, there were problems such as water supply and heating due to the lack of proper operation of the boiler from August 1 of the same year, and the Plaintiff did not err in the misapprehension of the facts that the Plaintiff did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or violating the rules of evidence, but did not err in the misapprehension of the court below’s finding of facts that the Plaintiff did not use the pipes more than half of the first half of the year since the date of repair, and the Plaintiff did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence, such as the lack of sufficient management of the boiler facilities, on the other hand, even though it did not err in the misapprehension of the court below’s reasoning.

2. On the first ground for appeal

In a lease agreement, a lessor is obligated to maintain the conditions necessary for the use and profit-making of the object while the lease agreement is in existence (Article 623 of the Civil Act). Thus, in the event of a damage or impairment to the object, the lessor is not obliged to repair unless it interferes with the lessee’s use and profit-making without any separate cost. However, if it is not sufficient to interfere with the lessee’s use and profit-making, the lessor is not obliged to repair. If it is not repaired, it can not be used and profit-making according to the purpose determined by the contract. Such a lessor’s obligation to repair may be exempted by the special agreement or may be attributed to the lessee. However, barring any special circumstance such as where the scope of the repair obligation is specified in such special agreement, if the lessor is discharged from the repair obligation or the lessee is liable for such repair obligation is limited to a small-scale repair, such as repairs, etc. which ordinarily may occur, and the lessor still bears the duty of repair without such special agreement.

According to the facts and records established by the court below, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a special contract at the time of the above lease agreement stating that "if the plaintiff, who is a lessee, bears the repair cost, and the plaintiff bears the full amount when the plaintiff is not in operation of a boiler," but does not specify the scope of the repair obligation to be borne by the lessee by the above special contract. Meanwhile, the pipe and boiler facilities at the above issue constitute the main constituent part of the building or the basic equipment part of the building, so the degree of damage was required a complete replacement, and the cost also requires large amount of repair. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above special contract constitutes a case requiring large-scale repair. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the lessor's duty of disposal or expression of intent, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the repair of evidence.

The author argues that there are special circumstances to interpret that the above special agreement is the lessee's responsibility for the repair of all the damaged and damaged parts of the boiler including the repair of piping and boiler, and that there is no difference between the court below's determination and the court below's determination, and that there was a trade practice that the lessee leases the boiler's construction costs or repair costs on the condition that the lessee bears all the facility costs or repair costs of the boiler, and that the Plaintiff indirectly bears all the repair obligations of the boiler with respect to the boiler. However, in light of the records, the above special agreement is not deemed to be leased less than the market price than the market price, as the court below determined properly, and it is not deemed that the female management officer of this case was leased less than the market price, as argued, there was a trade practice in the boiler industry, or that the Plaintiff indirectly or indirectly bears all the repair obligations of the boiler with respect to the boiler. However, it is not acceptable to accept the above special circumstance that the Plaintiff did not bear all or part of the repair costs of the boiler article.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)