If the lease and sub-lease period have expired after the sub-lease of the leased object, whether the lessor and sub-lessee have the rights and obligations to return the object directly.

If a lessee sub-leases the leased object and the period of sub-lease expires, regardless of whether the sub-lease has obtained the lessor’s consent, the lessor may demand the sub-lessee to return the object directly by taking the leased object into consideration the right to claim the return based on ownership, and the sub-lessee is also exempted from the obligation to specify the leased object by directly ordering the lessor to do so.

Articles 213 and 630(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Won-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Song-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na27191 delivered on April 13, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

If a lessee sub-leases the leased object and the period of sub-lease expires, regardless of whether the sub-leases obtained the lessor's consent, the lessor may demand the lessee to return the leased object directly by taking the right to request the return of the leased object based on ownership. Since the sub-lessees also are exempted from the obligation to order the lessor to directly order the lessor to do so, the court below is just in holding that the Defendant, a sub-leased, performed the duty to return the leased object by ordering the lessee to Nonparty 1, the lessor, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to return the leased object, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s lease of the bath of this case is not a land lease for the purpose of owning the building or structure, and therefore there is no room for the Plaintiff to claim the purchase of the leased object under Article 643 of the Civil Act, which points out in the argument, and even if the Plaintiff can exercise the right to purchase the leased object under Article 646 of the same Act, the obligation of the Defendant to return the leased object cannot be viewed as long as the obligation of the Plaintiff.

The Second Ground of Appeal

The facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to bear only 100,000 won per time when the sub-lease contract is concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are as recognized by the lower court. However, among receipts and simplified tax invoices and receipts employed by the Defendant as evidence in recognizing the repair cost that the amount does not reach KRW 100,000,000, the amount of each of the above 100,000 won is not indicated as the whole repair cost, but rather as the receipts for separately paying the repair cost for each of the above 1,00,000 won, each of the above 1,00,000 won is not indicated as the whole repair cost, and the whole repair cost for the repair cost for each of the above 1,00,000 won is clearly excessive. Thus, it is justifiable that the lower court recognized all the repair cost to be paid to the Defendant by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the grounds as alleged in the grounds.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)