Relation between the deposit money after the expiration of the lease period of the building and the possession of the part of the building

Unless there are special circumstances, it is recognized that the amount equivalent to half of the market price of the building is given in lump sum as the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and the interest on the deposit is set off against the rent, barring special circumstances. Since one party simultaneously performs the obligation to pay the deposit for lease on a deposit basis other than the obligation to pay the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the possession of the part of the building during the period when the lease contract period expires cannot be deemed as illegal possession, and the amount equivalent to the rent and the amount equivalent to the interest on the deposit for lease on a deposit basis is in a quid pro quo relationship.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 76Na157 delivered on April 30, 1976

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Unless there are special circumstances, it is recognized and implemented that the amount equivalent to half of the market price of the so-called building in the case of the lease on a deposit basis, namely, in the case of the lease on a deposit basis, the amount equivalent to the half of the price of the building, and the interest on the lease on a deposit basis is offset against the rent (see Supreme Court Decision 4287Da275 delivered on March 17, 195, Supreme Court Decision 66Da179, Nov. 29, 196, Supreme Court Decision 66Da1780 delivered on November 29, 196). In this regard, the court below's decision is just in holding that one party's obligation to return the lease on a deposit basis, which is different from the other party's obligation to return the lease on a deposit basis, may not be deemed as an illegal possession of the part of the building, and the amount equivalent to the lease on a deposit basis and the interest on the lease on a deposit basis shall not be deemed as an unlawful possession, and it shall not be deemed as well.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)