[1] The case affirming the judgment below which held that in a lawsuit brought by a landowner to seek rent for a specific period against the legal superficies holder, when the rent for the specific period is determined by judicial compromise, the land rent for the subsequent period shall be calculated on the basis of the rent for the previous period, and the landowner may claim the extinction of the legal superficies as long as the delayed rent for the previous period exceeds two years

[2] In cases where the amount of the rent of legal superficies is determined by a judgment, whether the landowner may claim the extinction of the superficies even if the delayed rent is not less than two years over the period before and after the final judgment becomes final and conclusive (affirmative)

[3] The validity of a deposit for repayment for a part of an obligation (negative) and in a case where a part of an obligation arising from a continuous transaction is deposited, whether the obligation is extinguished within the extent equivalent to the deposit amount (negative)

[1] Articles 287 and 366 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 287 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 487 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da44749 delivered on March 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1164) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 98Da17046 delivered on October 13, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2662)

Commercial Mutual Savings Bank (Law Firm Seom, Attorneys Park Do-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Lee Tae-tae (Attorney So-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2004Na10097 Decided June 1, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Appointed Party).

1. After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below found facts as stated in its reasoning. In light of the progress of the trial at the court of first instance and the court of second instance where the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant (appointed party) for the payment of the rent for the period from December 16, 200 to November 28, 201, the court below held that the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the rent for the period from 10 years to 20 years to 10 years from the date of the settlement at the court of second instance did not clearly indicate the base period or the rent for the land of this case. Thus, the court below's determination that the rent for the land of this case was not erroneous after 10 years to 20 years from the date of the settlement at the court of second instance and the date of the settlement at the court of second instance (the court below's determination that the rent for the land of this case did not exist after 20 years from the date of the settlement at the court below's determination that the rent for the land of this case did not exist after 10 years from the date.

2. Where statutory superficies is established and the rent amount is determined by the judgment, if the person holding superficies delays in paying the rent for a considerable period of time due to a cause attributable to the person holding superficies after the judgment became final and conclusive, even if the delayed rent has been paid for at least two years prior to and after the final and conclusive judgment, the landowner may claim termination of the superficies pursuant to Article 287 of the Civil Act, and even if the rent has been paid for at least two years prior to and after the final and conclusive judgment, the landowner shall not claim termination of the superficies (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da44749 delivered on March 12, 1993). Thus, even if a judicial compromise with the final and conclusive judgment was reached on September 13, 2002, which has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, the Plaintiff, who is the landowner, can claim extinguishment of the statutory superficies pursuant to Article 287 of the Civil Act.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal that a claim for the extinguishment of superficies cannot be made on the grounds of delinquency in payment of the previous rent due to the confirmation of judicial compromise is without merit.

3. To be effective deposit, the payment must be provided for the entire amount of the obligation and deposited for the entire amount of the obligation. Except in special circumstances such as the fact that the shortage in the deposit for part of the obligation is insufficient, the effect of extinction of the obligation does not occur even with respect to the deposit portion unless the obligee accepts it, and so long as the obligation is deposited for part of the obligation not in full, even if it is an aggregate of several obligations arising from continuous transactions, the effect of extinction of the obligation does not occur within the extent equivalent to the deposit amount. The judgment of the court below which accepted the claim for repayment of this case by 20,226,686 won from November 29, 201 to February 29, 2004, which is the transfer of the lawsuit in this case, was 20,226,686 won, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff accepted the repayment deposit of this case by the defendant (appointed party) for the reasons that the plaintiff had already been in arrears for two years or more at the time of filing the lawsuit in this case.

4. 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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)