If a lessee has made an agreement to restore the building to the original state at the time of termination of the lease, the validity of the right of retention on the premise that the lessor has the right to claim reimbursement of expenses.

If the lessee of a building terminates the lease relationship, the lessee is not entitled to claim the right of retention on the ground that the lessee has made an agreement to restore the building to its original state and order the lessor to leave the right to demand reimbursement for various beneficial or necessary expenses incurred in the building.

Attorney Yang In-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Jeong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na2906 delivered on November 23, 1973

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by the attorney of defendant Kim Jong-hwan.

In light of the records of the lease agreement (Evidence A6), it is clear that the Defendant’s judgment was based on the evidence at the time of the original establishment of the multi-user facilities and the interior facilities of the general building as of August 30, 71, with the consent of the Plaintiff to use the building as a multi-level facility, and the value equivalent to each original cost of the multi-level facilities and the interior facilities of the general building as of August 3, 73. In light of the fact that the Defendant entered into an agreement to restore the building to its original state at the time of the termination of the lease agreement to the Plaintiff to order the Plaintiff to surrender the building upon the termination of the lease agreement, which is the special agreement to give up in advance the right to demand reimbursement of all beneficial or necessary expenses

The issue is that the plaintiff's consent to use is only after the above lease contract has been entered into. Therefore, it is argued that the above consent should be interpreted as a modification of the special agreement for restoration to the original state made by the defendant under the above lease contract. However, the lessor's consent to use the building (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (No. 1) shall be viewed as an expression of legal obligation arising from the lease contract which the lessor would have to use the leased object. Accordingly, it is reasonable to interpret that the contents of the lease cannot be viewed as a modification of the terms of the lease contract as an interpretation of the parties' expression of intent. Accordingly, the decision of the original judgment in the same purport shall be

(2) The defendant Kang Jong-sung's appeal shall be dismissed, since the materials that can be viewed as the grounds of appeal are not snowed in a single case record.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)