2014Da21069 User Fees

A

B

Changwon District Court Decision 2011Na10734 Decided February 11, 2014

July 23, 2015

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. On June 5, 2004, C leased approximately KRW 170,000 of the first floor of F building E in Jinju (hereinafter referred to as “instant store”) from D with the term of KRW 50,000,000,000 monthly rent, from June 5, 2004 to June 4, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease contract”); KRW 300,000,000 out of the said lease deposit amount; and the remaining KRW 200,000,000 were borrowed from the Plaintiff, respectively.

B. In order to secure each of the above loan claims, on September 2, 2004, the registration of establishment of chonsegwon with a deposit for lease on a deposit basis with a deposit of KRW 300 million at the center of the instant store, and on the same day, the Plaintiff was registered for establishment of chonsegwon with a deposit of KRW 200 million with a deposit for lease on a deposit basis with a deposit of KRW 30 million at the north 70 square meters at the center of the instant store. C, while operating H in the central part of the instant store, he sub-leases the Plaintiff with a deposit of KRW 50 million for sub-lease and KRW 30 million at the monthly rent, and sub-lease the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 40 million for sub-lease and KRW 500 million at the monthly rent.

D. C instructed H’s demand for debt due to its business depression on April 2008, and the Plaintiff directly operated H since that time.

E. D, upon the expiration of the instant lease agreement on June 2009, deducted the overdue car from the lease deposit, and returned only KRW 150 million out of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, and the settlement was completed to the effect that there was no money to be returned to the Plaintiff.

F. On July 2009, the Plaintiff re-leased the instant store at KRW 170 million as lease deposit and KRW 187 million per month as lease deposit.

G. The Defendant did not pay the rent from April 2008, 2008 to September 30, 2009, which was removed from approximately 40 square meters of the inner part of the instant store.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a new lease contract with D on April 2008, 200 and the store of this case with the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million per month, which is after C's locking, and settled on June 2009 by deducting the overdue rent from the above lease deposit amount to June 2009. On July 2009, the court below concluded a new lease contract with D on July 2009 and made payment from July 2009 to September 2009. Accordingly, the court below determined that the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from the Defendant's right to demand reimbursement on behalf of the Defendant who used part of the store of this case to C or D, and that the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from the Defendant's unjust enrichment or management of the Plaintiff's unlawful profits, instead of the Plaintiff's intent at the time of acquisition and management.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff and D completed the settlement by way of returning 150 million won of the lease deposit remaining after deducting from the rent deposit 500 million won paid by C to D, which is the overdue rent of June 2009, from the rent deposit paid by C to D. Thus, C’s overdue rent up to June 2009 was deducted from C’s lease deposit and completed the settlement.

Although the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to C out of the above lease deposit amount of KRW 500 million, and even if it was established to secure the right of lease on a deposit basis, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was merely a loss for which the Plaintiff could not recover the loan from the debtor C, and that it did not have the effect that the Plaintiff paid the loan in lieu of C’s borrowing of the loan from the debtor C, or that the Plaintiff paid the loan in lieu of C’s borrowing of the loan amount of the Defendant’s return of unjust enrichment on behalf of D.

Moreover, the rent paid by the Plaintiff from July 2009 to September 2009 is that the Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement with D and paid the rent according to the new lease agreement, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant paid the rent on behalf of the Defendant for an obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the Defendant owes to D.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged the right to demand reimbursement of expenses for office management on the premise that the defendant paid unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to be paid to C through D on behalf of the plaintiff exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles on office management.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the Defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim In-bok

Chief Justice Lee Dong-young, Justice Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il