[1] The legal nature of facility leasing (financial lease)

[2] When a sales contract for a leased object is concluded between a lessee and a supplier of a leased object, whether a lessee owes a duty under the good faith principle to notify the lessee of the details of the pre-determined sales price to obtain consent from the lessee (affirmative with qualification), and whether the lessee may cancel the sales contract on the ground of deception by omission (affirmative)

[3] Where a lessee cancels a sales contract for a leased object with a supplier of a leased object on the ground of deception, but already collects a leased object by receiving a lease fee from the lessee, the scope of the sales amount to be returned by the lessee to the lessee

[4] In a case where a lease company purchased a leased object at a sale price determined at a significantly higher level than its market price, including brokerage fees, the case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized that the sales contract was concluded by deception without examining whether the sale price was extremely exceptional in light of the transactional concept

[1] A facility lease is a transactional relationship in which a facility leasing company newly acquires or leases specific items selected by the lessee and uses them for a certain period without direct maintenance and management liability for such leased items and the lessee collects money for acquisition of the leased items, its interest, and other expenses, and its essential function is to provide the lessee with financial convenience for the acquisition of the leased items.

[2] The sale and purchase contract between the lessee and the lessee is concluded for the purpose of fulfilling the contractual obligations after concluding the lease contract between the lessee and the lessee, and its purpose is to purchase the specific goods selected by the lessee from the lessee so that the lessee can use and profit from the goods. Therefore, it is different from the ordinary sale and purchase contract. In particular, even if the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase are agreed and decided in advance between the supplier and the lessee and the lessee, it is common sense that the lessee can enter into the sale and purchase contract between the supplier and the lessee in advance. However, since the ownership of the leased goods is ultimately attributed to the lessee from the beginning, and the ownership of the goods has function as a security for the recovery of the acquisition fund and other losses, the lessee has a substantial interest in the adequacy of the purchase and sale price. Thus, if the pre-determined sale price between the lessee and the supplier is extremely high in terms of transaction concept, and thus, the lessee and the supplier are not informed of the sale and purchase price of the goods, and thus, the company is not informed of the sale price of the goods under the good faith.

[3] Where a lessee cancels a sales contract for a leased object for deception, but already received rent from the lessee and collected the leased object due to the termination of the lease contract due to overdue rent, the lessee should deduct the amount equivalent to the lease fee that the lessee received additionally after payment of the purchase price and the amount equivalent to the profit accrued from recovery of the leased object in determining the scope of the return of the purchase price of the lessee due to the cancellation of the above sales contract.

[4] In a case where a lessee and a lessee purchased a leased object at a sale price determined at a considerably higher level than its market price, including brokerage fees, in addition to actual purchase, the case reversing the judgment below which acknowledged the cancellation of the sales contract on the ground that the sales price of the leased object was concluded due to the deceptive act of the supplier of the leased object without examining whether the sale price was extremely exceptional in light of the sale promotion expenses, brokerage fees, and other sales expenses incurred in the sale of the pertinent leased object, which is a special product

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Equipment Rental Business Act / [2] Articles 2 (1), 110 (1), and 568 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 110 (1), 741, and 748 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 110 (1) of the Civil Act, Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da25598 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2378) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu17065 delivered on May 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 1254) Supreme Court Decision 94Da23388 delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3240), Supreme Court Decision 95Da51915 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2836), Supreme Court Decision 97Da27107 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3600)

Mine Lease Finance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Oyang-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han-do Resource Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jong-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na35011 delivered on May 23, 1997

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment below

원심판결의 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여, 피고는 중장비, 트럭 등을 판매하는 회사로서 1994. 5.경 수입장비인 적재량 24t짜리 나비스타 덤프트럭 9대(이하 '이 사건 트럭'이라 한다)를 소외 선양자원 주식회사(이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)에게 원고 회사의 리스를 이용하여 판매하기로 하고 피고의 담당 직원인 소외 1이 리스이용자인 소외 회사와 매각 조건을 교섭함에 있어서 이 사건 트럭의 실제 판매가는 대당 금 101,000,000원에 불과하지만 이에 거래알선수수료 명목으로 금 891,000,000원을 가산하여 그 매매대금을 대당 금 2억 원으로 하되 알선수수료 명목으로 책정된 위 금원으로는 우선 리스이용자인 소외 회사가 피고에 대하여 부담하고 있던 금 139,038,098원의 채무를 면제하여 주고 담보제공자인 소외 2에게는 금 643,500,000원을 지급하여 그 돈으로 이 사건 트럭의 리스보증,금 1회 리스료, 취득세, 등록세, 보험료및 운영 자금과 소외 2의 부채 변제 등에 사용하기로 하는 한편, 그 나머지 금 108,461,902원은 리스이용자 측에 지급하지 않고 소외 1이 차지하기로 합의한 사실, 또한 위 소외 1은 그 무렵 원고의 직원에게 이 사건 트럭에 대한 리스를 신청하면서 이 사건 트럭의 성능이 우수하여 대당 가격이 다른 종류의 트럭보다 비싼 금 2억 원이라고 거짓말하여 이 사건 트럭의 실제 판매가에 대한 전문적인 지식이 없고 또한 대기업인 피고 회사가 제시하는 가격이 적정할 것으로 믿은 위 직원을 속여 원고로 하여금 그 담보로 1994. 5. 13. 소외 2이 제공한 소외 임동팔, 신광섭 소유 명의의 대지에 관하여 채권최고액 금 2,500,000,000원의 근저당권을 설정한 다음 소외 회사와 취득원가를 금 18억 원, 리스기간을 물건수령증서 발급일로부터 48개월간으로 하는 리스계약을 체결하게 한 사실, 원고는 같은 날 리스물건 공급자인 피고와 사이에 이 사건 트럭을 대당 금 2억 원 합계 금 18억 원에 매수하기로 하는 매매계약을 체결하고 소외 회사로부터 리스물건수령증서를 발급받은 후 위 매매대금 18억 원 중 위 리스계약에 따라 소외 회사가 원고에게 지급하여야 할 리스보증금 36,000,000원, 1회 리스료 16,350,000원 및 취득세 39,600,000원의 합계 금 91,950,000원을 공제한 나머지 금 1,708,050,000원을 피고에게 지급한 사실, 그러자 피고 회사는 위 매매대금 중 금 891,000,000원을 알선수수료로 처리하여 당초 교섭단계에서 협의한 대로 이를 충당 내지 지급하였고 다만 위 정승균에게 지급하기로 한 위 금 643,500,000원에서 피고가 소외 회사를 대신하여 리스보증금 등으로 지급한 위 금 91,950,000원을 공제한 나머지 금 551,550,000원만을 알선수수료 명목으로 지급하고 그 나머지 금 108,461,902원은 위 소외 1이 피고를 속여 임의로 소비한 사실, 그 후 소외 회사는 3회까지의 리스료만 납부하고 그 이후의 리스료는 납부하지 못한 채 부도를 내자 원고는 위 리스계약을 해지하고 이 사건 트럭 9대를 모두 회수한 사실, 한편 리스료채권 등에 대한 담보로 제공된 위 대지는 원래 진정한 소유자가 따로 있는데 위 담보설정자가 관계 서류를 위조하여 임의로 자신들 명의의 소유권이전등기를 마친 것으로서 그 담보 가치가 없는 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 리스물건이 최종적으로는 리스회사의 리스이용자에 대한 리스료, 규정손해금 등의 채권을 담보하는 것으로서 리스회사에 대한 리스물건의 매매가격이 리스이용자에 대한 실제 판매가보다 부당하게 고가일 경우 리스물건의 담보 가치가 피담보채권액에 비하여 상대적으로 낮게 되어 리스물건을 통한 채권 회수가 불가능하게 되는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 이 사건 트럭의 매매대금에 리스이용자인 소외 회사의 실제 구매가 이외에 각종 비용과 운영 자금, 소외 2의 부채 변제 등에 사용하기 위한 자금 및 위 소외 1의 개인적인 편취금까지 알선수수료 명목으로 포함되어 있어 위 매매대금이 실제 구매가의 약 2배에 달하는 사정을 알았다면 원고가 그 금액에 이 사건 트럭을 매수하지 아니하였을 것이므로 원고의 이 사건 매매계약은 기망에 의한 의사표시에 의하여 체결된 계약인데 원고가 이를 이 사건 소장 부본의 송달로 취소하였다는 이유로, 피고는 원고에게 위 매매대금에서 위와 같이 리스보증금 등을 공제하고 실제로 지급받은 위 금 1,708,050,000원 및 그에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다고 판단하였다.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 together.

The so-called "financial lease" is a transactional relationship in which a leasing company newly acquires or leases a specific object selected by a lessee and is liable for direct maintenance and management of such leased object, and the lessee is liable for the direct maintenance and use of the leased object for a certain period of time, and the intrinsic function of the lending company is to provide the lessee with financial convenience for the acquisition of the leased object. The sales contract between the leasing company and the lessee for the relevant leased object is to be concluded to fulfill its contractual obligations after the lease contract is concluded between the leasing company and the lessee and the lessee, and thus, the leasing company will have a specific object selected by the lessee to be used, and thus, it is different from the ordinary sales contract, especially between the supplier and the buyer for the sale and purchase of the leased object, the sale and purchase price of the leased object and the terms and conditions of the lease are to be determined in advance between the leasing company and the lessee, and thus, the company will have an interest in the leased object and thus be subject to prior consultation about the sale and purchase price of the leased object and thus, the company will have an interest in the sale and sale contract.

According to the records, if the sales contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff company and the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 9'.

However, the court below did not examine whether the sale price of the truck of this case, which was decided in advance between the non-party company and the defendant, was extremely exceptional in light of the transaction concept, and concluded that the sale contract of this case was concluded by the defendant's deception, recognized its revocation, and ordered the defendant to return the total amount actually paid as the purchase price. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the determination of the sale price in the sale contract concluded between the facility leasing company and the lessee, thereby violating the rules of evidence, and by failing to examine the existence of duty of disclosure under the principle of good faith as to the details of the sale price, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the scope of duty of return due to the cancellation of the sale contract, and there is a reason to point

3. 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)