logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.07.11 2018다200518
건물인도 등 청구의소
Text

The judgment below

The overdue rent by November 9, 2016 and the late payment damages for the overdue rent, and the subsequent rent and the subsequent rent.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

(a) If a lessee subleases the leased object with the consent of the lessor, the former lease agreement between the lessor and the lessee continues to exist (Article 630(2) of the Civil Act), and a new sub-lease agreement between the lessee and the sub-lessee exists.

Meanwhile, there is no direct legal relationship between the lessor and the sub-lessee, but the sub-lessee bears the direct obligations to the lessor for the protection of the lessor.

(see Article 630(1) of the Civil Act and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da265266, Dec. 28, 2017). In such cases, a sub-lessee is not liable to a lessor beyond his/her obligation to a sub-lease due to a sub-lease contract and at the same time he/she is not liable to a lessor beyond his/her obligation to a lessee due to a lease contract.

A sub-contractor or sub-lessee may change the terms of the sub-lease contract in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract.

In accordance with Article 630(1) of the Civil Act, even if the scope of the obligation directly borne by the sub-lessee to the lessor is changed due to such change, the sub-lessee may claim against the lessor the terms of the changed sub-lease contract, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the content of the sub-lease contract was made contrary to the purport of Article 630(1) of the Civil Act for the

The same shall also apply to a case where a sub-contractor and a sub-lessee reduces the rent under a sub-lease contract.

In addition, in calculating the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the rent that the former lessee has to return to the lessor after the termination of the lease, if the amount of the rent at the time of unjust enrichment is not considered as the standard but as the standard of the contract, it is based on the changed difference between the former and the former and the latter, which are directly responsible for the lessor.

arrow