2016Da38207 Building Name Map

A

B

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Na12872 Decided July 21, 2016

January 24, 2018

Of the part against the Defendant in the lower judgment, the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent and rent is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court. The remaining appeals are dismissed.

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

(1) The lower court determined that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 15,40,000 per month from April 10, 2015 to December 29, 2015, by deeming that the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate from the date of termination of the instant lease agreement to the date on which delivery of the instant real estate was completed, thereby gaining profits from such occupation and use, and thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff, a lessor.

(2) However, such determination by the lower court is difficult to accept. Giving benefit from return of unjust enrichment on the ground of benefit without any legal ground means gaining a substantial benefit. Therefore, even though the lessee continued to possess the leased building after the lease agreement relationship was terminated, it is in accordance with the original purpose of the lease agreement.

In a case where a lessee was unable to use or make a profit from his/her non-use and profit, thereby causing a loss to the lessor, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established. This also applies to the case where the lessee was unable to use or make a profit from the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances, or the lessee was not required to remove his/her own facility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da6048

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, although the instant lease agreement was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on April 9, 2015 on the grounds of delinquency in rent, the Plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit, and the purpose of the instant real estate is a factory. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a director by newly concluding a lease agreement on another factory during the first instance trial. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant removed the instant real estate from the instant real estate on July 30, 2015, and even thereafter, the Defendant’s goods remains in the instant real estate, but the Plaintiff executed the seizure of corporeal movables on December 29, 2015.

Examining such circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant, after leaving the instant real estate, gained substantial profits by using and benefiting from the instant real estate according to the original purpose of the lease agreement.

(3) Nevertheless, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent that occurred during the period from April 10 to December 29, 2015. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unjust enrichment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(1) The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the lessor’s wishes to return the lease deposit without deducting the amount of overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears from the lease deposit, and thus, it cannot be deducted from the Plaintiff’s intent. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the lease deposit should be deducted from the amount of KRW 10 million,000,000.

(2) However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the lower court.

The security deposit received from the lease of real estate guarantees all the obligations of the lessee arising from the lease, such as the lease obligation, the liability for damages arising from the loss of, damage to, etc. of an object, and the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the security deposit without any separate declaration of intention, barring special circumstances, when the object is returned after the termination of the lease relationship. Therefore, the lessee may assert that the lease contract in which the security deposit is received should deduct the overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent from the security deposit until the object is returned upon termination of the lease contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da7725, Mar. 26, 201).

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant, regardless of the lessor’s intent, can claim to deduct the overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the lease deposit, which occurred until the lease contract of this case is terminated and returned.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of deduction on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the deduction of lease deposit, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. As to the third ground for appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance of the duty to restore electric facilities to its original state.

Examining the record, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part against the defendant in the judgment below, the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to overdue rent and rent is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Chief Justice Cho Jae-dae

Justices Kim Jae-in