The scope of overdue rent in which the lessor may claim a set-off against the creditor of the lessee who has the whole claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the lessor of the lessee.

The effect of an assignment order on the lease deposit claim is that, in light of the nature of the claim, the lessee is deemed to have occurred when the lessee orders the lessor to provide the leased object. Therefore, the lessor may claim a set-off against the entire obligee by using the claim such as overdue rent, etc. incurred to the lessee until the order is issued, and only the claim against the lessee, which existed at the time of receipt of the assignment order, cannot be viewed as the automatic claim.

Article 492 of the Civil Act, Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 77Da1241, 1242 decided Sep. 28, 1977 (Article 536(80)8 decided Nov. 13, 1973 (Article 492(19) of the Civil Act, Article 492(19)8 of the Civil Act, Article 10580 of the Civil Act, Article 77Da1241, 1242 decided Sep. 28, 197

Orala

Park Nam-ok

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,701,387 and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day when the copy was served to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

On July 31, 1985, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Busan District Court 85Ra (number omitted) against the Nonparty, the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 2,701,387 out of the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,700,000 in the amount of KRW 5,70,000,00 in the amount of KRW 85,10563 against the Defendant of the above Nonparty, and the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 2,701,387 in the amount of the lease deposit repayment claim of KRW 30,00 in Busan Dong-gu, Busan. The attachment and assignment order was served on the Defendant around that time, and the fact that there was the obligation of the Plaintiff’s principal to return the above lease deposit against the above Nonparty at the time of the above delivery had no dispute between the parties. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 2,701,387 in full to the Plaintiff.

However, there is no dispute between the above non-party and the non-party. The above non-party's overdue charge against the non-party between June 1985 and May 7, 1986 shall be KRW 340,00 per month, and 4,080,000 per month, and the above non-party's overdue charge of the non-party shall be 612,515,000,000 won for the above non-party's overdue charge of the above non-party to the above non-party after the lease contract of the above building was concluded (the date of conclusion of the contract can be known as May 7, 1985). The non-party's overdue charge of the above non-party's above non-party to the above non-party shall be separated from the above non-party's claim of the non-party 1,2 (lease contract) and the above non-party's claim of the above non-party's entire overdue charge and the above non-party's claim of restitution shall be separated from the above non-party's pleading.

The plaintiff asserts that even if the defendant filed a lawsuit against the non-party for an explanation of the above object of lease against the non-party and received a favorable judgment on January 24, 1986, the defendant did not intentionally execute its explanation. Thus, the defendant asserts that the claim of the above overdue rent, etc., which occurred after the above date, cannot be offset against the non-party.

However, even if all creditors were ordered to return the lease deposit, the assignment order takes effect only when the future lessee ordered the lessor to order the object of the lease in light of the nature of the claim. Therefore, the lessor may assert a set-off against all creditors by using the claim incurred to the lessee until the order is issued. This legal principle does not lead to any difference on the ground that the lessor was given a favorable judgment prior to the lessor’s intention to specify the object of the lease by the lessee. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless without any further review.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-chan