(a) The scope of debts to be restored due to the termination of lease by a lessee who has leased a store where the inside facilities have been installed and remodeled;

(b) Scope of losses suffered by the lessor, where the lessor has completed the restoration instead of a lessee by delaying the duty of restoration due to the termination of the lease;

A. In a case where a lessee, who had been employed by the former lessee as an amusement restaurant, has an obligation to reinstate the object and return it to the lessee due to the termination of the lease, barring any separate agreement, even though the lessee is obligated to restore the leased object to the original condition due to the termination of the lease, and the lessee is within the scope of the lessee’s remodeling, and the lessee is obliged to restore the leased object to the original condition until the previous

B. If a lessee delays the duty to restore due to the termination of the lease, the damage suffered by the lessor is not equivalent to the rent from the date of delay until the date when the lessor actually performs the duty to restore at his/her own expense, but equivalent to the rent from the date when the lessor could have recovered at his/her own expense

(b)Article 618(b) of the Civil Code;

Attorney Seo Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows.

A. On January 1, 1985, the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff leased the instant store to the Defendant for a fixed period of KRW 25,000,000 per annum, including the deposit amount of KRW 11,00,000,000, the rent of KRW 100,000, and the period of December 31, 1985, on condition that the said deposit was returned to the original state after the expiration of the contract term; and (b) the Plaintiff agreed to return the instant store to the original state after the expiration of the contract term.

B. At around December 13, 1982, the Plaintiff, along with Nonparty’s strong uniforms, was notified by the Defendant that he would return the instant store from the Defendant’s restoration to its original state as of December 13, 1985, which had been operated by other persons as “YYADDDDD”, and the Plaintiff continued to operate the instant lease contract with the Defendant as of January 1, 1985 when he was operating the said store by leasing it from the Defendant (the Plaintiff appears to have been in error in the lower court’s judgment) and changing the inside facilities of the competitor near the market to the “New-Seoul”, and continued to operate the business from January 1, 1985 when he continued to operate the said lease contract with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff would not be able to recover from its original state to the extent that it would be possible for the Plaintiff to recover from its original state the remainder after deducting from the incidental deposit by removing the name of the Plaintiff from the time of leaving the store until December 27, 1985.

C. On the following day, the plaintiff sought restitution to the defendant, but he did not recover to the original state upon the request of the representative of the defendant who tried to recover the original state, and urged the plaintiff to refund only the whole lease deposit without delay. On February 3, 1986, the defendant notified the plaintiff that he would deduct the rent 12,60,000, and the construction cost and other charges and damages determined by the defendant from the lease deposit, since the plaintiff could not use the store in this case due to the delay in restitution to the plaintiff.

D. On March 26, 26 of the same year, the Plaintiff again asserted that he did not receive a refund of the deposit for lease from the Defendant on the ground that it was insufficient even if he completed the restoration of the store of this case at the Defendant’s request, and that if there was any deficiencies as alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refund of the deposit for lease by March 31 of the same year, after attaching a quotation and deducting the necessary construction cost.

E. As can be seen, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit on the ground that the store was restored to its original state, and the Defendant refused to return the lease deposit upon receiving such order on the ground that the lease deposit was not restored to its original state, resulting in a dispute over whether the lease deposit was restored to its original state. In addition, it was understood that the Plaintiff would completely restore the store of this case to its original state and order the Plaintiff to return the lease deposit and receive the lease deposit from the Defendant upon the request of the Legal Aid Association in the Jeju District Prosecutors' Office.

F. Since then, the plaintiff paid KRW 741,965 of the above rent to the end of June of the same year and paid KRW 12,60,035 of the remainder after deducting KRW 12,60,000 of the rent equivalent to the rent from the following day to January 8, 1987, from the end of October of the same year to December 29 of the same year, the plaintiff still failed to restore to the original state. The defendant paid KRW 741,965 of the total amount of the rent from the rent of KRW 25,00,000 for the above rent of KRW 25,00,000 and the rent of KRW 12,60,000 from the termination of the lease contract of this case after deducting the rent of KRW 12,60,000 from the end of October 8, 1987.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. In the lease of a building, the lessee’s obligation to restore the leased object after the completion of the lease and the obligation to return the lease deposit after deducting the lease deposit for overdue rent and other damages from the lessor’s obligation to repay the leased object simultaneously. However, if the lessee clearly expresses his intention to not restore the leased object, the lessor may make up for the lessee’s delay by means of oral offer to demand the restoration of the leased object and its receipt and order. The Plaintiff refused the restoration on January 21, 1986 and notified the Plaintiff of his intention to pay the lease deposit on February 3, 1986, and then the Plaintiff is liable for damages resulting from the delay following the date. The amount of damages shall be the amount equivalent to the amount that the Plaintiff’s intention to recover from February 4, 1986 to December 29, 1986 after the Defendant completed the restoration at his own expense, and the amount equivalent to the amount that the Plaintiff borrowed from the store of this case and the amount equivalent to the amount that the Plaintiff acquired from the Defendant’s store of this case shall be 905 years.

B. irrespective of how the plaintiff is the defendant, the damage was incurred by the plaintiff's mistake that the director's store was not leased to the other party without delay by directly restoring it to the original state at his own expense. Therefore, considering such defendant's negligence, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damage to be paid to the defendant as 6,610,045 won (9,915,068x 2/3).

C. Since the construction cost of KRW 5,00,000 paid by the Plaintiff is a cost disbursed by the Plaintiff as a part of the duty to restore, a claim for return cannot be made.

3. Judgment of party members

A. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff (the plaintiff submitted to the defendant's legal representative on June 30, 1988, and the defendant, upon completion of the above building, leased the store of this case operated by non-party training profit first to the non-party training profit on June 18, 1979) to remodel the internal facilities from the defendant. Thus, even though there is a duty to restore the object to its original state due to termination of the lease, it is within the extent of the plaintiff's alteration unless there is a separate agreement, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff has the duty to restore the original state to its original state of the plaintiff's facilities.

Therefore, if there was an agreement on the restoration to original state between the plaintiff and the defendant, what is the content and purpose of the agreement, the condition of the object at the time of lease at the time of lease by the plaintiff, what is the facilities the plaintiff planned and remodeled, what extent the scope of the restoration requested by the defendant was, and what kind of the plaintiff actually was what it was done by the plaintiff, the court below should determine whether to implement the plaintiff's restoration to original state or whether to compensate for damages or not, and the court below did not have any unlawful reasons.

B. If the plaintiff's duty of restitution is delayed due to the reasons as acknowledged by the court below, the damage suffered by the defendant should not be the amount equivalent to the rent from the plaintiff's delay date until the date the defendant actually completed the restoration, but the amount equivalent to the rent for a considerable period of time that the defendant could have been able to restore.

In this part, the court below should be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of damages.

C. Examining the record, it seems that the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff’s beneficial cost KRW 5,00,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s assertion was a part of the duty to restore this case (the date for the first instance trial 26th day) is a cost to be borne by the Plaintiff, rather than a cost to restore the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff is not a duty to restore the lease deposit, and that the Defendant refused to return the lease deposit and requested it and sought its return without any duty.

The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court below is that the plaintiff's statement is understanding the purport of the plaintiff's statement and the judgment is erroneous or unreasonable.

4. In addition, since the above misunderstanding of legal principles affects the judgment, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)