In cases where a transferee of a leased building is obliged to return the lease deposit to the lessee upon the termination of the lease relationship after acquiring the ownership of the building, whether the overdue rent or management fee, etc. incurred before succeeding the status of the lessor is naturally deducted from the lease deposit even if the status of the lessor does not meet the requirements for the transfer of claims (affirmative), and whether the same applies to cases where the lease deposit was transferred from the lease contract to which the lease deposit was received, or where the seizure and collection order was issued (affirmative)

Articles 450 and 618 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5654, 56561, 5658, 5658, 5658, 56585, 56592, 5608, 56615, 56622, 5639, 56646, 5653, 56660 Decided December 23, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 1874 Decided March 22, 2017 (Gong2017Sang, 841)

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Park Tae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2016Na307598 Decided December 8, 2016

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant, who succeeded to the lessor’s status, was liable to pay KRW 30,891,297 unpaid lease deposit to the Plaintiff, who is the lessee, and that the Defendant agreed to deduct KRW 30,891,297 equivalent to the overdue rent, etc. of the Plaintiff before acquiring the ownership of the building of this case from the lease deposit, on the ground that it is difficult to acknowledge that the submitted evidence alone was such an agreement

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the facts regarding the establishment of an agreement or implied agreement, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. Since a lease deposit guarantees all the obligations of a lessee arising from the lease after the termination of the lease contract until the delivery of the object to the lessor, the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the lease deposit without any separate declaration of intention when the object is returned after the termination of the lease contract. Therefore, where the transferee of the leased building has to refund the lease deposit to the lessee upon the termination of the lease relationship after the acquisition of the ownership of the building, the overdue rent or management expenses incurred before the succession of the lessor’s status shall be naturally deducted from the lease deposit even if the requirements for the assignment of the claim are not satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da21874, Mar. 22, 2017). The same holds true even if the lease deposit received was transferred with the lease deposit, or there was a seizure and collection order with respect to the lease claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5654, 561, 5678, 5665, 56665, 5666265665,65665

B. After the Plaintiff delayed the rent, etc. equivalent to KRW 30,891,297 to the former lessor, the Defendant succeeded to the status of the lessor by acquiring ownership of the building of this case. Upon the termination of the lease relationship thereafter, the Plaintiff was refunded only the lease deposit excluding the amount equivalent to the above overdue rent and delivered the building of this case to the Defendant, there is no dispute between the parties.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the amount equivalent to the above overdue rent, which the Defendant incurred prior to acquiring the ownership of the building of this case, is naturally deducted from the lease deposit when the object is returned after the termination of the lease relationship. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the deduction of the lease deposit, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the lessor did not express his/her intention to deduct the overdue rent, etc. from the deposit before the termination of the lease contract, or transfer his/her claim to the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)