[1] Whether, in quasi-joint and several liability, a creditor may claim performance within the scope of his/her obligation against anyone among the debtors (affirmative), and whether the grounds arising from an obligor, other than the grounds such as repayment that can be viewed as having reached the creditor’s satisfaction, are effective for another debtor (negative

[2] In a case where a large-sum obligor partially performs a debt when the amount different is jointly and severally liable with each other, the part to be extinguished first (=the part to be solely liable by the large-sum obligor)

[1] The quasi-joint and several liability is one of the several parties’ legal relations that independently and severally assume the obligation to repay the same content to the obligee, and the status of obligee is strengthened compared to the joint and several liability. The obligee is entitled to claim performance within the scope of liability to anyone among the obligors, and the ground arising from the obligor’s repayment is not effective for another obligor except for such reasons as repayment that can be deemed to have reached the obligee’s satisfaction.

[2] In a case where a large-sum obligor partly performs the obligations with different amounts of obligations, the part that is first extinguished shall be deemed to be the part that a large-sum obligor solely bears the obligation. This conclusion accords with the purport of the quasi-joint and several liability system that ensures the repayment of all obligations to creditors regardless of their financial ability, repayment order, and reimbursement relationship among the quasi-joint and several obligors.

[1] Articles 413 and 414 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 413 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da74236 Decided March 22, 2018 (Gong2018Sang, 688)

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Law Firm Hyd Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and eight others (Law Firm Seoul, Attorneys Park Jae-type et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2074815 decided September 8, 2016

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The quasi-joint and several liability is one of the several parties’ legal relations that independently and severally assume the obligation to repay the same content to the obligee, and the status of the obligee is strengthened compared to the joint and several liability. The obligee is entitled to claim performance within the scope of the obligation to anyone among the obligors, and the cause for the quasi-joint and several liability is not the same as repayment that can be deemed to have reached the obligee’s satisfaction.

Where a large-sum obligor performs a part of an obligation that differs from one another, the part that is first extinguished due to the repayment ought to be deemed the part that a large-sum obligor owes to the obligation solely by the large-sum obligor. This conclusion accords with the purport of the quasi-joint and several liability system that ensures the payment of the entire obligation to creditors regardless of the person jointly and severally liable’s financial ability, repayment order, and reimbursement relationship among them (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da74236, Mar. 22, 2018).

2. A. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

(1) During the period from 2009 to 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the co-defendant 2 of the lower court, a representative of Nonparty 1, the owner of the instant multi-family house, and paid the lease deposit.

(2) The owner on the register of the instant land in which the instant multi-family house had been located was not Nonparty 1 but the Jeonju Angyeongan Angympa, and the said clan sold the instant land to Anknman Co., Ltd. The said clan. In filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs to leave the building against the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs left the instant multi-family house without being able to refund the lease deposit.

(3) When entering into a lease agreement with the Plaintiffs, Nonparty 2 did not notify the Plaintiffs that the site of the instant multi-family house was not owned by Nonparty 1, and that, if the said clan sold the site to a third party, Nonparty 1 was an adjustment to remove the instant multi-family house.

(4) The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiffs with adequate data on whether the Plaintiffs can use and benefit from the leased object normally and the legal relationship necessary to determine whether the leased object can be repaid properly after the termination of the lease contract.

B. The lower court determined on the basis of the foregoing factual basis as follows.

(1) Due to the Defendants’ mistake, the Plaintiffs suffered property loss of the right of lease or failure to refund the deposit. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 30 of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (Amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014).

(2) Such liability is jointly and severally and severally related to the tort liability of Nonparty 2. However, in consideration of the Plaintiffs’ negligence, the Defendants’ liability is limited to either 50% or 30%.

(3) The amount partially repaid by Nonparty 2, a large-sum obligor, to the Plaintiffs after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, is repaid from the portion on which Nonparty 2 solely bears the obligation. Accordingly, the remaining amount of the Defendants’ obligation should be calculated.

3. The lower court’s determination is justifiable on the basis of the foregoing legal doctrine. In so determining, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity in cases where a large-sum obligor partially repaid the obligations with different amounts.

4. The Defendants’ appeals are dismissed in entirety on the grounds that they are without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing parties. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)