Supreme Court: "Among Multiple Lease Contracts with Changed Conditions, the Later One Is Valid"

Supreme Court

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that when multiple lease contracts with different conditions are sequentially written for the same leased property, the contract content should be judged based on the most recently written contract.

On the 26th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jaehyung) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of tenant A in a lawsuit filed against landlord B for the return of the lease deposit.

The court stated, "If the legal relationship is not clearly defined, it is reasonable to interpret that the contract content has changed according to the later written contract."

In December 2010, A contracted with B to lease a commercial building in Gwangju for five years and operated a franchise coffee shop.

Subsequently, A and B sequentially drafted four lease contracts with slightly different terms regarding the leased area and duration.

In October 2015, before the lease contract expired, A informed B of the intention not to renew the contract. In January 2016, after completing the demolition work inside the commercial space, A returned the keys to B.

However, B claimed that the contract period was eight years starting from 2010, so the contract period remained. B also notified A that from December 26, 2015, the lease deposit would increase from 100 million KRW to 200 million KRW, and the monthly rent from 9.5 million KRW to 14 million KRW. B returned the keys sent by A.

In response, A filed a lawsuit against B, demanding the return of approximately 60 million KRW, which is the lease deposit of 100 million KRW minus unpaid monthly rent.

The first trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, stating that the lease contract between the two could not be considered terminated.

The court based its judgment on the third lease contract among the four, which stipulated an eight-year lease period. The fourth contract, which specified a five-year period, did not include any special provisions unlike the third contract, nor did it show signs of being rewritten.

On the other hand, the second trial court overturned the first trial and ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

The court found no grounds to consider the fourth contract with a five-year period as false and judged that since A had removed all facilities inside the commercial space and returned the keys to B, the leased portion had been fully delivered.

B appealed, but the Supreme Court did not accept the appeal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.