Plaintiff (Law Firm Sharing, Attorneys Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Han-dong et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

March 22, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gadan13130 Decided September 24, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,492,00 won with 30,492,00 won with 5% interest per annum from September 1, 2008 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. For 25,000,00 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 25 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Defendant: The part against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: "the defendant" in the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance's second instance's second instance's "the plaintiff as the principal deposit"; "the plaintiff's duty to deliver the store of this case and the duty to return the lease deposit of the non-party union's second instance's second instance's second instance's " August 25, 201"; "the non-party union's deposit appears to have deposited the lease deposit without giving up the simultaneous performance claim; since the plaintiff did not pay any amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent from September 208 to the return of the lease deposit, the court of first instance's first instance's second instance's "the non-party union's second instance's second instance's "Article 11" in the first instance court's second instance's second instance's "the non-party union's first instance court's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance judgment's " it is not effective in accordance with Article 15 of the Commercial Building Lease Act.".

2. Determination on addition

A. The defendant's argument

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lease agreement was concluded upon the Plaintiff’s consent to the Defendant’s demand for the increase of deposit and the withdrawal from a recurrence, and that since the Plaintiff paid the deposit and the rent under the said contract thereafter, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the deposit and the monthly rent increase based on the said agreement are null and void cannot be permitted against the good faith principle.

B. Determination

Under the Civil Act, the principle of trust and good faith is an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship shall not exercise his/her right or perform his/her duty in a manner that violates the principle of trust and good faith, taking into account the other party’s interest. In order to deny the exercise of such right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, the other party has provided good faith to the other party, or the other party has a good faith from an objective point of view, and the exercise of rights against the other party’s good faith has to reach such an irrecoverable level in light of the concept of justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da24104, Aug. 18, 201).

On the other hand, if the defendant is to directly use the lease contract, the plaintiff first notified the plaintiff of his refusal to renew the lease contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff's request for renewal of the lease contract is the only means to resolve the livelihood of his family members. Thus, in light of the circumstances of the conclusion of the lease contract of this case concluded at the end of several times, the plaintiff's new letter cannot be deemed to be a claim for the return of unjust enrichment of this case against his good faith by providing the defendant a new letter before and after the conclusion of the lease contract of this case, and the above claim cannot be deemed to have reached the extent that it cannot be acceptable in light of the concept of justice. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and each appeal by the plaintiff and defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Hong (Presiding Judge)