The legal nature of the real estate lease deposit and whether the secured obligation are naturally deducted from the lease deposit without a separate declaration of intention when the object is returned after the termination of the lease (affirmative)

The security deposit received in the lease of real estate shall guarantee all the obligations of the lessee arising from the lease relationship, such as the rental fee and the liability for damages incurred by the loss, damage, etc. of the object, and the amount equivalent to the secured obligation shall be naturally deducted from the security deposit without any separate declaration of intention, except in extenuating circumstances, when the object is returned after the termination

Article 618 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Da68 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987, 1147) (Gong1987, 1229), Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2865 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1229), Supreme Court Decision 9Da24881 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1783)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yellow-dae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na24722 delivered on July 14, 1999

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

The security deposit received in the lease of real estate guarantees all the obligations of a lessee arising from the lease relationship, such as the rental fee and the liability for damages arising from the loss, damage, etc. of an object, and the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the security deposit without any separate declaration of intent, unless any special circumstance exists when the object is returned after the termination of the lease relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu2865, Jun. 23, 1987; 87Meu1315, Jan. 19, 198).

The court below acknowledged the fact that each building owned by the Defendants, which was owned by the non-party, was transferred to the non-party due to an unknown fire. Accordingly, since each lease relationship between the Defendants and the non-party with respect to each of the above buildings was terminated, the Defendants, the lessee of each of the above buildings, paid each of the above buildings to the non-party as the fire insurer of each of the above buildings, and determined that the Defendants, within the scope of each payment insurance amount, are liable to pay the non-party only the remainder after deducting each of the above lease deposits of the Defendants from the amount equivalent to the damages of each of the above buildings caused by the above fire, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to lease deposit, or misunderstanding of legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)