The case holding that the lessor permitted the lessor to recover the facility investment cost from a new lessee, instead of the agreement that the lessor would return the facility at the time of termination of the contract to the lessee, in light of the overall circumstances of the special agreement on the lease agreement.

The case holding that the lessor permitted the lessor to recover the facility investment cost from a new lessee, instead of the agreement that the lessor would return the facility at the time of termination of the contract to the lessee, in light of the overall circumstances of the special agreement on the lease agreement.

Articles 105, 618, and 626(2) of the Civil Act

E. E.N.

This letter (Attorney Choi Jong-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 18, 1999

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) successively connects the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) with each point of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 19, 18, 7, 8, 9, 21, and 16, 17, 19, 19, 7, 8, 9, 21, and 10 among the 3th 6th 10th 6th flusium of the building in the annexed list, the part of the ship connecting each point of 70.85m2 and 16, 17, 19, 20, and 16.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) through the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The principal lawsuit: the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant) paid to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff) an amount of KRW 44,211,600 with 25% interest per annum from February 6, 1998 to the date of full payment.

Counterclaim: The same shall apply to paragraph (2) of this Article.

The plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim are examined together.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, 2-4, 3-1, and 3-2, and the results of the on-site inspection of party members and the survey and appraisal of appraiser tobacco;

A. On May 16, 197, a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) is a building owned by the Defendant for which the registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of the Defendant.

B. On February 6, 1996, the Defendant: (a) on the second floor of the instant building, set the Plaintiff as the lease deposit deposit amount of KRW 15,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease term of KRW 24 months from February 6, 1996.

C. According to the above lease contract (Evidence No. 1 and No. 1), the lessee may rebuild or alter the leased property under the approval of the lessor. However, the lessee has a clause in the same letter which provides that the lessee shall bear all the expenses and restore the leased property to its original state in the named city, and (2) is a special agreement, which provides that “it is prohibited from receiving the premium without the lessor’s permission,” “I shall delete the premium from the deposit in arrears of the security deposit,” and “I accept the facility investment expense.”

D. After moving into the above store, the Plaintiff operated a coffee shop with the trade name of “clock clinic.” At the time of the expiration of the above lease term, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the above lease deposit and the facility cost invested by the Plaintiff, and from April 1998, the Plaintiff did not operate the said coffee shop, and it was impossible for the Defendant to use the door by opening the door in a state where the Plaintiff’s various office fixtures, etc. were set up in the above store.

2. The plaintiff and defendant's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 44,211,60,00 in total, including KRW 15,00,000,000 for lighting and electric power works, shop floor works, toilet works, and interior expenses, etc. after the Plaintiff moved in the said store, and the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 29,211,60,00 in total, since the contract was concluded, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 15,000,00,000 in total, for the foregoing time facilities and lease deposit. As a principal claim, the Defendant sought payment of the said money.

B. As to this, the Defendant did not pay the rent only once after the conclusion of the instant lease contract, and thus, there is no deposit to be returned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff if the unpaid rent up to March 5, 1998 was appropriated for the above lease deposit. (2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s facility cost claimed is decided to be restored to the original state at the time of return of the leased object at the time of conclusion of the instant lease contract, and there is no reason to claim a return of the beneficial cost. The part to recognize the facility investment cost in the contract is that the Plaintiff moves from the instant store and later moves to the said store and the lessee is able to recover the facility investment cost directly to the lessee, and the lessor does not purport to return the facility investment cost directly to the lessee. As a counter-claim, the Plaintiff seeks the name of the instant store against the Plaintiff

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant lease was terminated due to the expiration of the period of February 6, 1998.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above 29,211,600 won to the Defendant for the installation cost. (1) Each entry in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, which appears to be difficult to believe that the Defendant would pay the above money. The part recognizing the facility investment cost under the contract of this case merely recognizes the facility investment cost, and does not provide that the lessor should pay the facility investment cost. There is a provision stipulating that the lessee shall be obliged to restore the facility cost to the lessee of the name city of the store of this case. The phrase and the phrase of recognizing the facility investment cost cannot be collected from the deposit without the lessor’s permission. Since the above facility cost is much more than the lease deposit than that of this case, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the facility cost of this case to the Plaintiff for the purpose of returning the facility cost of this case, which is no more than that of the contract of this case.

C. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid rent after the instant lease agreement.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's 15,00,000 won of the lease deposit of this case was fully appropriated for 15,00,000 won (60,000 won x 25 months) payable from February 6, 1996 to March 6, 198. Since the defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to return the above facilities of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as without merit, and the defendant has a duty to order the plaintiff to order the store of this case. Thus, the defendant's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hah Sung-dae