In case where the lease contract is terminated but the object is not clear, whether the lessee may refuse to pay the rent in arrears on the ground that the deposit exists (negative)

Since the lease deposit is delivered to secure the rent incurred until the lessee orders the object and the obligation of other lessee after the termination of the lease contract, the lessee may not refuse the payment of the rent in arrears on the ground that the deposit exists, unless special circumstances exist, even if the lease contract is terminated.

Articles 618, 633, and 640 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Da68 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987, 1147), Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1315 delivered on January 19, 198 (Gong1988, 408), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4417 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2609)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Life Insurance Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na60943 delivered on April 6, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The court below, on April 9, 1997, determined that the office bond of this case was 50,00,000 won, monthly rent was 4,300,000, and lease term was 197, and on January 3, 1999. On April 11, 1997, the above company's default on payment, and on August 29, 1997, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the rent bond of this case against the above company which had already occurred or may occur under the above lease contract from the court on August 1, 1997, and the original copy was delivered to the defendant on September 1, 197. Since the above lease contract was terminated on August 31, 1998 by the defendant, it was not valid until the expiration date of the lease contract until the expiration date, and it cannot be viewed that the above lease contract was terminated by the court below's determination that the lessee's claim for payment of the rent bond was 9 days after the expiration date.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)