[1] In a case where a party’s intent to waive the right to demand reimbursement of useful expenses is recognized to the effect that it is different from the terms of the lease agreement, which is a disposition document, whether it can be interpreted as a limitation on the agreement under the lease agreement

[2] The case holding that where a lease contract is concluded for the purpose of running a restaurant by constructing a building after leasing a land in a forest condition and constructing a building, it is reasonable to interpret that the agreement to waive the lessee's right of preferential reimbursement is applied only to the cost newly invested after the object land is created as the site

[1] Even if a written lease agreement should be interpreted according to its language and text, barring any special circumstances, in light of various circumstances, such as the context and purpose of the conclusion of the agreement, the term of lease, and the amount of lease deposit and rent, in a case where it is deemed reasonable to interpret the intent of a party to waive his/her right to demand reimbursement for expenses only within a certain scope explicitly and implicitly, unlike the language and text of the agreement, the scope of application of the agreement may be restricted according to the party’s intent.

[2] In a case where a lease contract is concluded for the purpose of constructing a building by leasing a parcel of land in a forest and land and operating a restaurant, it is reasonable to interpret that the contract party's intent to demand reimbursement of necessary and beneficial expenses is to the effect that, even if the lease contract created the parcel of land in a forest and land as a site for the purpose of the lease and entered in the waiver of the whole cost without asking the purpose of the use of the expense, the lessee has waived his/her right to demand reimbursement and the cost of creating the site is not subject to the waiver of the right to demand reimbursement.

[1] Articles 105 and 626 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 626 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da2286 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1710), Supreme Court Decision 96Da27612 delivered on September 20, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3160), Supreme Court Decision 97Da22768 delivered on September 26, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3240)

Public Official Pension Corporation (Attorney Go Chang-deok et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Tae-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na53269 delivered on June 9, 1998

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding land delivery [the part of Article 1-A(1) of the Act] shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below acknowledged that at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant did not claim reimbursement of expenses, etc. under Article 203 or 626 of the Civil Act to the Plaintiff, and concluded to return leased property to its original state when the lease term expires or the contract is terminated, and it should be deemed that the Defendant, a lessee, has made an agreement to waive in advance the right to demand reimbursement of necessary and beneficial expenses. Accordingly, the court below rejected the Defendant’s defense as to the existence of the right to demand reimbursement of beneficial expenses arising from the creation of forest land as the site of this case by using the amount of KRW 118,196,640, and based thereon

However, barring any special circumstances, even if the content of the expression of intent should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text of the contract, in light of various circumstances, such as the process and purpose of conclusion of the contract, the term of lease, the amount of lease deposit, and the amount of rent, if it is deemed reasonable to interpret the intent of the parties to waive their right to demand reimbursement for expenses only within a certain scope explicitly and implicitly different from the text of the contract, the scope of application of the contract may be restricted according to their intent.

According to the facts and records established by the court below, the defendant created a site with the change of the shape and quality of the land of this case owned by the plaintiff 1,045 square meters, and constructed a public restaurant on such ground. The lease period of the plaintiff was 1,40,00 won from September 12, 1994; the lease fee of one year without the lease deposit was 9,40,000 won based on the forest condition; the defendant, upon obtaining permission for the use of land from the plaintiff on November 29, 1994; 118,196,640 won from March 27, 1995; 200,000 won from the lease contract of this case; 30,000 won from the lease contract of this case; 40,000 won from the lease contract of this case; and 9,000 won from the lease contract of this case to the original condition of this case; and 9,000 won from the lease contract of this case to the original condition of this case.

Therefore, if the language and text of the above contract provision is interpreted as it is, even though the period of time is less than several months, the defendant merely waives his right to demand reimbursement of the cost of site creation and the right to demand purchase of buildings in preparation for the size of the restaurant or rent (the agreement on the waiver of the right to demand purchase of a building is recognized by the court below that it is invalid since it is in violation of the law) and even if it is not unreasonable interpretation because it is even bears the duty to restore the forest to the forest and land to the original state. This situation is that the land of this case can only be constructed as the site because it cannot be used for the purpose of lease, and it is possible to use the land of this case as the site as it is, like the above performance guarantee insurance policy provision on the lease contract. In full view of the fact that the land of this case is included in the provisions on the performance guarantee insurance policy of this case that the plaintiff did not demand its implementation, the lease contract of this case is reasonable to interpret it to the effect that the plaintiff waives his right to demand reimbursement of the rent.

Therefore, even though the defendant cannot be deemed to have waived his right to demand reimbursement against the land creation cost of this case, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense and acceptance of the plaintiff's claim against the land delivery as it is for the reasons stated in its reasoning shall not be deemed to have affected the judgment by misunderstanding the interpretation of the expression of intent indicated in the disposition document and violating the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding land delivery is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)