In a case where multiple persons jointly leased a lease contract with a lessee, whether the lease contract should be terminated in accordance with the intention of termination by all joint lessees (affirmative in principle), and whether such legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where a part of the leased object is transferred and become a joint lessor by succession to the status of the lessor (affirmative)

Article 547(1) of the Civil Act provides that “if one or both of the parties has a single lease contract, the termination or rescission of the contract shall be made against all or some of such parties.” Thus, in a case where multiple persons have concluded a single lease contract with a lessee as a joint lessor, the entire lease contract shall be terminated upon the declaration of intention of all or some of the joint lessees, barring special circumstances, such as that there is a special agreement excluding the application of Article 547(1) of the Civil Act. This legal doctrine likewise applies not only to the case where the lease was made at the time of conclusion of the lease contract, but also to the case where a part of the leased object was transferred to the lessor

Articles 547(1), 408, and 409 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Defendant (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 201Na14500 decided November 30, 2011

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the claim for extradition of real estate shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the claim for delivery of real estate

Article 547(1) of the Civil Act provides, “If one or both of the parties is to be a joint lessor, the termination or rescission of the contract shall be made against all or some of them.” Thus, in a case where a single lease contract is concluded with the lessee as a joint lessor, barring any special circumstance, such as that there is a special agreement excluding the application of Article 547(1) of the Civil Act, the whole lease contract shall be terminated upon the declaration of intention of all the joint lessors. This legal doctrine likewise applies not only to the case of a joint lessor from the time when the lease was concluded, but also to the case where a part of the leased object is transferred to the lessor and becomes a joint lessor due

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Mart Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Meart Development") on April 7, 2005 with a deposit of KRW 101 and KRW 102,000,000 per month, and KRW 100,000 per month (hereinafter "the lease agreement of this case"), and the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on April 7, 2005 with a single object, stating the whole amount of No. 101 and No. 102 as object while entering into the lease agreement of this case, and without distinguishing the deposit and rent from each object, the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on June 30, 2005 as one of the whole, and the defendant succeeded to the status of the non-leased No. 2101 and No. 102 as one of the lease agreements of this case on June 10, 2005, and the plaintiff notified the defendant of the purchase of No. 10101 and 2101.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, barring special circumstances, such as the agreement to exclude the application of Article 547(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff cannot independently terminate only the portion of the instant lease agreement that is non-102, and can only terminate the entire instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff by declaring that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff may terminate the entire termination of the instant lease agreement by way of the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination of the entire termination of the instant lease agreement.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant is obligated to deliver part of the non-102 to the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff can terminate only the non-102 of the lease agreement of this case by unilaterally declaring the intent of termination. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the legality of termination, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the claim for payment in cash

The defendant filed an appeal as to the part of the claim for payment of money in the judgment below, but the petition of appeal or the appellate brief does not contain any grounds of appeal as to it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the Defendant regarding the claim for extradition of real estate is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)