A. Purport of the provision of Article 629 of the Civil Act stipulating the lessor's right to cancel the contract when transferring or sub-lease without permission

B. Whether the lessor has the right to terminate the lease contract in special circumstances where the lessee’s act of allowing a third party to use the leased object without the lessor’s consent is deemed an act of distribution against the lessor (negative)

(c) The case holding that the circumstances such as where the transferee of the right of lease is the lessee and the couple living together with the leased building and operates the furniture together, constitute the “special circumstances” as referred to in the above paragraph (b); and

A. Article 629 of the Civil Act provides that a lessee may not transfer or sub-lease his/her right without the consent of the lessor, and if the lessee violates this, the lessor may terminate the lease contract. This is to protect the lessor’s personal trust or economic interests by taking into account the continuous legal relations based on the original individual trust of the party. The lessee’s use or profit-making of the leased object to a third party without the consent of the lessor can be an act of good faith that makes it difficult for the lessor to continue the lease relationship. Therefore, the lease contract under the Civil Act is unilaterally concluded to allow the lessor to terminate the lease relationship.

B. Even in cases where a lessee allows a third party to use and profit from the leased object without a separate consent from the lessor, in special circumstances where the lessee’s act cannot be deemed as an act of worship against the lessor, the right to terminate the lease pursuant to the above provisions of the law does not occur.

(c) The case holding that the circumstances such as where the transferee of the right of lease, as the lessee and the couple living together with the leased building, manage the furniture together, constitute the “special circumstances” as referred to in the above paragraph (b);

Article 629 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 71Da2400 decided Jan. 31, 1972 (No. 201Da24950 decided Apr. 13, 1993 (Gong193, 1379)

A Private Teaching Institute for School Foundation

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na12720 delivered on September 8, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 629 of the Civil Act provides that a lessee may not transfer or sublease his/her right without the consent of the lessor (Paragraph 1), and a lessor may terminate the lease contract if the lessee violates it (Paragraph 2). This is to protect the lessor’s personal trust and economic interest by taking into account the continuous legal relations based on the original party’s personal trust and thus, not harming it. The lessee’s profit from the use of the leased object to a third party without the consent of the lessor can cause the lessor to terminate the lease contract unilaterally because it is difficult for the lessor to continue the lease relationship.

Therefore, even if a lessee allows a third party to use and benefit from a leased object without a separate consent from a lessor, if there are special circumstances where the lessee's act cannot be deemed as an act of distribution against the lessor, it is reasonable to interpret that the termination right under the above Article does not occur.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party co-defendants of the court of first instance constructed and owned the building in this case on November 31, 1983, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name on July 8, 191, which was after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and the non-party entered into a lease contract as to the site of the building in this case with the plaintiff prior to the construction of the original building. The non-party was merely the above non-party, but the defendant, who is his wife, naturally holds the right of lease as a lessee under the above lease contract, is entitled to occupy the site of the building in this case. The above non-party's claim that he was entitled to occupy the site of the building in this case on the ground that he had concluded a lease contract with the plaintiff on October 31, 1983 and the fact that the defendant was the status of the above non-party at the time of conclusion of the above lease contract, but such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as holding the right of lease.

3. According to the records, the lease contract of this case was concluded by arranging the plaintiff to remove the building site of the household store which the above non-party and the defendant couple had been operating since before it was incorporated into the road site. The contract guarantees the lease period until the disposal of the land and guarantees the tenant's preferential right at the time of disposal. The lessee's preferential right is strengthened. The defendant living together with the above non-party and the building of this case, who operated the building of this case where the building of this case had not been registered as consolation money, was transferred to the plaintiff on November 11, 198, and it was hard to view that the above building of this case was managed by the above non-party alone, and the non-party's right of living together with the above non-party's property, which was married again with the above non-party on March 7, 1992 and living together with the non-party's property right to use the building of this case, and the defendant's property right to use the building of this case can not be seen as one of the above non-party's property rights to use.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal relations in a case where a third party uses or takes profits from the leased object without a lessor's consent, and the arguments are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)