In a case where a lessor was unable to have access to the leased office due to locking the office, whether the lessee can be deemed to have obtained the benefit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the office (negative)

If the lessee of the office did not pay rent and management expenses, and the lessor did not deliver a replacement key after the opening of the office entrance by replacing the locks of the office entrance, and the lessee could not have access to the office, and the lessee could not have access to the office, it cannot be said that the lessee obtained the benefit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the office without any legal ground.

Article 741 of the Civil Code / [Improper Enrichment due to Possession, Use and Profit-making]

Supreme Court Decision 80Da378 Decided November 10, 1981 (Gong1982,45) (Gong1984,1021) Decided May 15, 1984 (Gong1984,1021) 85Da422,85Meu1796 Decided March 25, 1986 (Gong1986,691)

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na39783 delivered on March 22, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendant’s attorney’s ground of appeal

The judgment of the court below as to the points points out by the theory of lawsuit is just and acceptable in light of the relation of evidence as stated by the court below, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law that misleads the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law that misleads the judgment of the court below as to the whole court's determination of evidence and the recognition of facts

2. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 2

As the court below duly confirmed the facts, the defendant, the lessee of the office of this case, did not pay the rent and management fee, and the plaintiff, the lessor, did not deliver the replaced key after the locking of the office entrance to the defendant, and if the defendant could not have access to the office and could not have access to the office, the defendant could not be viewed as having obtained profits equivalent to the rent from the office without any legal ground, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)