(a) Requirements for the occurrence of liability to pay damages for delay agreed to be paid where a lessee delays the specification of a leased building;

(b) Where the head of a tax office seizes claims and notifies the debtor of the seized claims pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act, the recipient thereof;

A. Inasmuch as a lessee’s duty to specify a leased building and the lessor’s duty to refund the remainder after deducting the unpaid monthly rent, etc. from the rental deposit is concurrently in a simultaneous performance relationship, if it is not acknowledged that the lessor performed the duty to return the deposit to the lessee, or that the lessee’s duty to specify the building was omitted due to providing the lessor with the actual performance, the lessee is not liable to pay the agreed delay damages in the event of delay after the expiration of the lease term.

B. In case where a claim is seized by the director of the tax office pursuant to the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the obligor of the seized claim may not discharge his obligation to the creditor, and in case the superintendent of the tax office, pursuant to Article 41 (2) of the same Act, subrogated to the creditor by notifying the obligor of the attached claim under Article 41 (2) of the same Act, the director of the tax office shall be deemed to have acquired the right to collect the claim, and

(a) Articles 398, 536, and 618 of the Civil Act;

Plaintiff’s General Law Firm, Attorneys Seo Youngk and Go Young-ro, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na446 delivered on October 2, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the first and second points:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below agreed on September 1, 1981 that the defendant, who leased the store of this case from the plaintiff 5th day to manage the office of clothing, renewal of the lease contract between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant on September 1, 1984, and may extend the lease period for two months until May 1 of the same year for the defendant's preparation. The lease deposit amount shall be KRW 27,00,000, and monthly rent shall be KRW 280,000,000, respectively. Further, the plaintiff 5th day after the expiration of the above renewal contract, and the plaintiff 6th day after the expiration of the above renewal contract, the plaintiff 1 and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff 20,000,000 won at the rate of 10,000,0000 won for the remaining 6th day after the expiration of the lease contract, and the defendant also requested the plaintiff 5th day after the expiration of the above lease contract.

The court below is just in holding that the obligation of the defendant to specify the object upon the expiration of the lease term of this case and the obligation of the plaintiff to return the remaining deposit after deducting the non-paid monthly rent from the plaintiff is in a simultaneous performance relationship. There is no error of law in misunderstanding legal principles as to the effect of termination of the lease.

In addition, inasmuch as the Defendant’s obligation to specify the instant building and the Plaintiff’s obligation to refund the remainder after deducting the unpaid monthly rent, etc. from the deposit for the instant lease, as determined by the lower court, it is not acknowledged that the Plaintiff fulfilled the obligation to return the deposit to the Defendant or provided the actual performance thereof, and the name of the Defendant’s building was omitted due to delay, the Defendant is not liable to pay the agreed delay damages as the payment key in the event of delay after the expiration of the lease term.

From the same view, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for the payment of delayed damages is just, and it is not acceptable to accept the allegation that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of a building on the ground that the court below decided as above on May 26, 1985 on the premise that the defendant moved from the building of this case to another place.

2. On the third ground for appeal

In case where a claim is seized by the director of the tax office in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the obligor of the seized claim cannot repay the obligation to the obligee. Meanwhile, if the director of the tax office subrogated the obligee by notifying the obligor of the attachment under Article 41(2) of the same Act, the obligor of the seized claim shall be deemed to have acquired the right to collect the claim. Therefore, if the obligor of the seized claim has the due date, he shall be liable to perform it

From the same view, the court below's decision that the plaintiff, an obligor of the claim to be seized due to the delinquency in payment of national taxes, has received the notification of seizure in the case after the expiration of the lease period of this case, so long as the above notification of seizure was not performed, the same legal effect as the defendant provided the obligation to return the deposit cannot be asserted. Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant cannot be viewed as having caused the delay in the performance of the obligation to explain, is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the repayment period of the obligation to return the deposit, such as the lawsuit, or misunderstanding of the legal principles as

3. Ultimately, 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)