[1] The case holding that in case where Eul and Eul shared lessee Gap and Eul are the joint lessee in the sense that Gap was entitled to receive the full amount of the lease deposit after the expiration of the lease contract period when the lease contract was concluded between the landlord and Eul on the basis of the burden of the lease deposit between the landlord and Eul, it is reasonable to view that Eul transferred Eul's claim for the return of the lease deposit to Eul and Byung consented thereto

[2] Whether an obligor may set-off against the assignee, if there is a bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the assignee even though the obligor did not withhold an objection against the assignment of claims, or if there was a bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the assignee, and if there was a subsequent set-off, then the obligor may set-off against the assignee (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that Gap and Eul shall bear part of the lease deposit, but Eul shall be refunded the full amount of the lease deposit at the expiration of the lease term because there are many claims that Eul shall receive from Eul, and therefore Gap shall make a lease contract in the sense that Gap shall receive the full amount of the lease deposit from Eul, Eul, and Byung shall be refunded, and in the sense that Eul shall make a lease contract in the name of tenant Gap as a joint tenant regardless of the lessee's name in the lease contract, Gap shall enter into a lease contract concurrently with Eul, and Eul shall be deemed as Eul's transfer to Eul for the purpose of securing the payment of the lease deposit to Eul, and Byung shall have consented thereto.

[2] Even if the obligor has given his/her consent without reserving an objection to the transferor, or even if he/she has given his/her consent without reserving the objection, the assignee may set up against the assignee with the ground that occurred in relation to the transferor even at the time of the consent of the obligor, insofar as the assignee falls under the case of bad faith or gross negligence. In cases where there was any ground for setting-off which could have already occurred at the time of the consent, if there was no set-off, then the obligor may set-off against the assignee.

[1] Articles 105, 278, and 618 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 451(1) and 492 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 83Meu2288 delivered on September 11, 1984 (Gong1984, 1642)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 98Na176 delivered on February 12, 1999

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the reasoning of the judgment below

원심은, 그 내세운 증거에 의하여, (1) 원고가 피고로부터 이 사건 임차 건물을 임대차보증금 30,000,000원으로 임차하여 소외 1로 하여금 임차 건물에서 식당을 경영하게 하고 소외 1이 그 이익금 중 일부를 원고에게 주기로 하는 한편 임대차보증금 중 금 20,000,000원은 원고가 부담하고, 나머지 금 10,000,000원은 소외 1이 부담하기로 하되 당시 원고가 소외 1로부터 지급받아야 할 채권이 상당히 많았기 때문에 임대차기간이 종료되었을 때 임대차보증금 30,000,000원 전액을 원고가 반환받기로 한 사실, (2) 이에 따라 원고는 피고에게 1996. 1. 13. 계약금으로 금 4,000,000원을, 같은 달 29. 임대차보증금 중 금 16,000,000원을 지급하였는데, 소외 1은 자신이 부담하기로 한 나머지 임대차보증금 10,000,000원을 피고에게 지급할 여력이 없어 같은 달 28. 피고의 연대보증하에 소외 2로부터 금 2,000,000원을 변제기를 같은 해 5. 30.로 정하여 차용하고, 같은 해 1. 29. 소외 3의 연대보증하에 소외 4로부터 금 8,000,000원을 변제기를 같은 해 5. 29.로 정하여 차용한 다음 그 차용금 합계 금 10,000,000원을 같은 해 1. 29. 피고에게 임대차보증금으로 지급하면서, 원·피고와 소외 1은 같은 날 월 차임을 금 200,000원, 임차기간을 같은 달 30.부터 36개월로 정한 다음 그에 따른 임대차계약서를 작성함에 있어 위에서 본 바와 같은 원고와 소외 1 사이의 임대차보증금 반환에 관한 약정에 따라 위 임대차보증금 전액을 원고가 반환받는다는 의미로 위 임대차계약서상의 임차인 명의를 원고 단독으로 한 사실, (3) 그 후 소외 1이 임차 건물에서 식당을 경영하다가 1996. 5. 31.까지의 차임만 지급한 상태에서 식당을 그만두고 도주하자, 원고와 피고는 같은 해 10. 31. 위 임대차계약을 합의해지하기에 이르렀고, 그 무렵 원고는 피고에게 임차 건물을 명도한 사실, (4) 그러자, 소외 4는 소외 1에게 대여한 금원을 변제받기 위하여 위 식당 내의 전자제품과 소외 1이 살고 있던 ○○아파트에 대한 금 5,995,000원 상당의 임대차보증금반환청구권을 가압류한 후 소외 1을 상대로 대여금 청구소송을 제기하여 1997. 1. 8. 승소판결을 받은 다음, 그 판결에 기하여 소외 1의 위 임대차보증금반환청구권에 대하여 강제집행절차를 취하는 한편 연대보증인인 소외 3에게도 변제할 것을 요구하자 소외 3은 위 판결상의 채권을 자신에게 양도하여 줄 것과 피고도 같이 연대보증한 것으로 하여 영수증에 날인하여 주는 것을 조건으로 위 차용금을 변제하겠다고 하여 소외 4는 같은 해 4. 18. 소외 3으로부터 금 8,000,000원을 변제받은 다음 소외 3의 요구대로 피고도 연대보증인으로 기재한 영수증을 작성하여 주었고, 또한 소외 1에 대한 위 판결상의 채권도 소외 3에게 양도한 사실, (5) 소외 3과 피고는 소외 1이 소외 4로부터 위 금 8,000,000원을 차용하면서 작성한 차용증(갑 제15호증)을 복사하여 그 위에다 연대보증인으로 피고를 기재한 차용증(을 제2호증의 1)을 새로이 작성한 사실을 인정한 다음, 임대차계약서상에 임차인으로 기재되어 있는 원고만이 이 사건 임대차계약상의 임차인으로서 피고로부터 위 임대차보증금 전액을 반환받을 지위에 있다고 판단하고 피고의 다음과 같은 주장, 즉 이 사건 임대차계약상의 임차인은 원고와 소외 1로서 원고와 소외 1은 이 사건 임대차계약상의 임차보증금 중 금 20,000,000원은 원고가, 금 10,000,000원은 소외 1이 부담하기로 하여 소외 1은 피고의 연대보증하에 소외 2로부터 금 2,000,000원, 소외 4로부터 금 8,000,000원 합계 금 10,000,000원을 차용한 다음 이를 피고에게 임대차보증금으로 지급하게 되었는데, 소외 1이 위 차용금을 변제하지 못하여 피고가 대신 연대보증책임을 이행하여야 할 경우를 대비하여 피고는 이 사건 임대차계약을 체결할 당시 소외 1과의 사이에서 소외 1이 위 차용금을 변제하지 못할 경우 소외 1이 반환받아야 할 임대차보증금 10,000,000원에서 위 차용금을 공제하기로 약정하였는데 소외 1이 위 차용금을 변제하지 아니하였으므로 이 사건 임대차보증금에서 위 차용금 합계 금 10,000,000원을 공제하여야 한다는 주장을 배척하면서, 을 제2호증의 2의 기재에 변론의 전취지를 보태어 보면 소외 1이 임대인이 아닌 소외 3과 사이에서 소외 4로부터 차용한 금 8,000,000원을 변제기 내에 변제하지 아니하면 위 임대차보증금에서 금 8,000,000원을 우선적으로 공제하기로 약정하였다는 사실이 인정된다고 하더라도 이러한 점만으로는 위와 달리 볼 수 없다고 판단하였다.

2. Determination

However, as acknowledged by the court below, if the plaintiff and the non-party 1 bear part of the lease deposit, but the plaintiff was able to receive the payment from the non-party 1, the full amount of the lease deposit shall be refunded at the expiration of the lease term, and accordingly, if the plaintiff alone entered into a lease contract with the plaintiff in the sense that the plaintiff was able to receive the full amount of the lease deposit from the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 entered into a lease contract with the defendant as a co-resident, notwithstanding the lessee's name under the lease contract, unless there are special circumstances. However, the right to return the lease deposit that the non-party 1 paid to the defendant is transferred to the plaintiff for the purpose of securing the payment of the claim against the non-party 1

On the other hand, even if the debtor in the assignment of claims did not withhold an objection against the transferor, or consented without withholding an objection, the transferee may set up against the assignee for the reason that occurred against the transferor even at the time of the consent of the debtor, unless it constitutes a case of bad faith or gross negligence. If there was a ground for setting-off which occurred at the time of the consent, even if it was not yet set-off, if there was a ground for setting-off thereafter, the debtor may set-off against the transferee.

In this case, even according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 agreed to deduct the above loan from the lease deposit to the non-party 2 on the part of the defendant's joint and several guarantee before the formation of the above lease contract, and paid the loan amount of KRW 2,00,00 from the non-party 2 on May 30, 1996. According to the records, if the non-party 1 and the defendant did not pay the above loan money, and the non-party 1 did not pay the above loan money, the non-party 1 would have agreed to deduct the above loan money from the lease deposit which the non-party 1 should have returned, and then the fact that the defendant paid the above money to the non-party 2 on behalf of the non-party 1. The court below should have deliberated whether the defendant did not withhold objection to the plaintiff at the time when the plaintiff, the defendant and the non-party 1 et al. made the above lease contract, or whether the defendant's consent without withholding the objection constitutes a bad faith or gross negligence.

Furthermore, the court below recognized that the non-party 1 agreed to pay 8,00,000 won to the non-party 1 for the loan borrowed from the non-party 4, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the above amount should be deducted from the lease deposit of this case, but it is difficult to accept such measures for the following reasons. According to the evidence No. 15 and No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the court below's evidence No. 15, the non-party 1 signed and sealed the non-party 30,00 as joint and several surety for the loan of 8,00,000 won from the non-party 4 and the non-party 1's joint and several surety for the loan of 80,000 won from the lease deposit of the leased building to the non-party 4, and it is doubtful that the non-party 1 paid 8,000 won to the non-party 3 as a joint and several surety for the above loan of this case to the non-party 1 as a lessee.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion that the sum of the above loan amounts to KRW 10,00,000 shall be deducted from the lease deposit of this case solely on the grounds as seen earlier does not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the intent of the third party agreement under the lease agreement to the Plaintiff alone, and by failing to examine in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)