Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Landlord's duty to keep the lease usable regardless of fault
Supreme Court, Apr. 29, 2021, 2021Da202309 (judgment)
Case name: 보증금반환
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the leased property has a defect preventing the tenant from using and enjoying it for the agreed purpose, does the landlord's duty to maintain it in a usable state remain even though the defect arose without any fault of the landlord, and does the landlord's ignorance of it, or the tenant's knowledge of it, discharge that duty?
Holding
It remains. Under the first sentence of Article 623 of the Civil Code the landlord must deliver the property so the tenant can use and enjoy it, and where a defect obstructs that use the landlord must remove it and deliver the property free of defect, or remove it afterwards. Neither a lack of fault of the landlord, nor the landlord's ignorance of the defect, nor the tenant's knowledge of it discharges the duty. A written contract binds the parties by its wording unless there is clear and acceptable counter-evidence, and where its meaning is disputed the court reads it by the wording, the motive and circumstances, the purpose and the parties' true intent.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
임대인의 임차목적물의 사용·수익상태 유지의무는 임대인 자신에게 귀책사유가 있어 하자가 발생한 경우는 물론, 자신에게 귀책사유가 없이 하자가 발생한 경우에도 면해지지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
The lessor's duty to maintain the leased object in a state of use and profit is not relieved where a defect arises with an attributable cause of the lessor himself, and likewise where a defect arises without any attributable cause of the lessor.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 피고 동양전자산업 주식회사에 대한 손해배상청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below dismissing the plaintiff's claim, insofar as it concerns the claim for damages against the defendant Dongyang Electronics Industry Co., Ltd., is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
임대인의 임차목적물의 사용·수익상태 유지의무는 임대인 자신에게 귀책사유가 있어 하자가 발생한 경우는 물론, 자신에게 귀책사유가 없이 하자가 발생한 경우에도 면해지지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
The lessor's duty to maintain the leased object in a state of use and profit is not relieved where a defect arises with an attributable cause of the lessor himself, and likewise where a defect arises without any attributable cause of the lessor.
Factors
- 처분문서는 그 성립의 진정함이 인정되는 이상 법원은 그 기재 내용을 부인할 만한 분명하고도 수긍할 수 있는 반증이 없으면 처분문서에 기재된 문언대로 의사표시의 존재와 내용을 인정하여야 한다
- 당사자 사이에 법률행위의 해석을 둘러싸고 다툼이 있어 처분문서에 나타난 당사자의 의사해석이 문제 되는 경우에는 문언의 내용, 법률행위가 이루어진 동기와 경위, 법률행위로써 달성하려는 목적, 당사자의 진정한 의사 등을 종합적으로 고찰하여 논리와 경험칙에 따라 합리적으로 해석하여야 한다
- 임대인은 임차인이 목적물을 사용·수익할 수 있도록 목적물을 임차인에게 인도하여야 한다(민법 제623조 전단)
- 임차인이 계약에 의하여 정하여진 목적에 따라 사용·수익하는 데 하자가 있는 목적물인 경우 임대인은 하자를 제거한 다음 임차인에게 하자 없는 목적물을 인도할 의무가 있다
- 임대인이 임차인에게 그와 같은 하자를 제거하지 아니하고 목적물을 인도하였다면 사후에라도 위 하자를 제거하여 임차인이 목적물을 사용·수익하는 데 아무런 장해가 없도록 해야만 한다
Unofficial English translation
• Where the authenticity of the establishment of a dispositive document is recognized, the court must, in the absence of clear and convincing counterevidence sufficient to deny its stated contents, recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the wording recorded in the dispositive document
• Where a dispute exists between the parties over the interpretation of a juristic act, and the interpretation of the parties' intent as manifested in a dispositive document is at issue, it must be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logic and the rule of experience, by comprehensively considering the content of the wording, the motive and circumstances under which the juristic act was made, the purpose sought to be achieved by the juristic act, the parties' true intent, etc.
• The lessor must deliver the object to the lessee so that the lessee may use and profit from the object (Article 623, former part of the Civil Act)
• Where the object is defective in that the lessee cannot use and profit from it in accordance with the purpose determined by the contract, the lessor has a duty to remove the defect and then deliver the object free from defects to the lessee
• If the lessor has delivered the object to the lessee without removing such a defect, the lessor must, even thereafter, remove the above defect so that there is no obstacle whatsoever to the lessee's use and profit of the object
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2010. 4. 29. 선고 2009다96984 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984 decided April 29, 2010
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2002. 6. 28. 선고 2002다23482 판결(공2002하, 1816), 대법원 2018. 7. 12. 선고 2017다235647 판결(공2018하, 1586), 대법원 2021. 3. 11. 선고 2020다253430 판결(공2021상, 756) / [2] 대법원 2010. 4. 29. 선고 2009다96984 판결(공2010상, 995)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
On remand, how should the damages against the landlord be measured where the tenant had undertaken under the franchise transfer documents to check in advance whether the permits could be obtained?
The remand judgment of the Incheon District Court on the damages claim against Defendant Dongyang Electronics Industry Co., Ltd. will show how the duty and the loss are worked out. Any amendment to Article 623 or Article 105 of the Civil Code, or a later decision changing the rule that the duty survives a defect arising without the landlord's fault, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 5 (factors), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “처분문서는 그 성립의 진정함이 인정되는 이상 법원은 그 기재 내용을 부인할 만한 분명하고도 수긍할 수 있는 반증이 없으면 처분문서에 기재된 문언대로 의사표시의 존재와 내용을 인정하여야 한다 / 당사자 사이에 법률행위의 해석을 둘러싸고 다툼이 있어 처분문서에 나타난 당사자의 의사해석이 문제 되는 경우에는 문언의 내용, 법률행위가 이루어진 동기와 경위, 법률행위로써 달성하려는 목적, 당사자의 진정한 의사 등을 종합적으로 고찰하여 논리와 경험칙에 따라 합리적으로 해석하여야 한다 / 임대인은 임차인이 목적물을 사용·수익할 수 있도록 목적물을 임차인에게 인도하여야 한다(민법 제623조 전단) / 임차인이 계약에 의하여 정하여진 목적에 따라 사용·수익하는 데 하자가 있는 목적물인 경우 임대인은 하자를 제거한 다음 임차인에게 하자 없는 목적물을 인도할 의무가 있다 / 임대인이 임차인에게 그와 같은 하자를 제거하지 아니하고 목적물을 인도하였다면 사후에라도 위 하자를 제거하여 임차인이 목적물을 사용·수익하는 데 아무런 장해가 없도록 해야만 한다” vs Independent “문언의 내용 / 법률행위가 이루어진 동기와 경위 / 법률행위로써 달성하려는 목적 / 당사자의 진정한 의사 / 계약에 의하여 정하여진 목적에 따라 사용·수익하는 데 하자가 있는 목적물”
The primary reading lists the Article 623 chain of delivery and defect removal, which the independent reading mostly omits. The independent reading lists four interpretive factors and one reference to a defective property, so the overlap is partial and the central factors of the landlord duty differ.
문언의 내용Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “On remand, how should the damages against the landlord be measured where the tenant had undertaken under the franchise transfer documents to check in advance whether the permits could be obtained?” vs Independent “To what extent may an express contractual allocation of repair duties limit the landlord's obligation to remedy defects?”
The primary reading asks how to measure damages on remand given the franchise pre-check undertaking, while the independent reading asks how far an express repair allocation in the contract can limit the landlord's duty. These are different unresolved points.
임대인의 임차목적물의 사용·수익상태 유지의무는 임대인 자신에게 귀책사유가 있어 하자가 발생한 경우는 물론, 자신에게 귀책사유가 없이 하자가 발생한 경우에도 면해지지 아니한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Incheon District Court, in its judgment of 10 December 2020 (2020Na56066), rejected the plaintiff's damages claim against Defendant Dongyang Electronics Industry Co., Ltd. The building's use had been changed from a neighbourhood facility to a factory on 11 November 2016, before the lease of 20 July 2018; the lease was written only because the plaintiff and the outsider assigned the franchise contract the day before and needed the tenant's name changed, so the defendant merely responded passively; neither party knew of the obstacle; and the assignment documents obliged the plaintiff to check in advance whether the permits could be obtained.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that once the written lease was made, the lease was concluded as recorded unless there was special circumstances, and the request that the document be redrawn did not alter that. Because an obstacle had arisen to the plaintiff's use of the shop as a convenience store as the contract provided, the landlord had to remove it irrespective of responsibility or foresight, and its duty could not change with the obligations the plaintiff owed under franchise agreements to which the defendant was not a party. It reversed the damages claim against the company and remanded, and found no error in dismissing the rest of the appeals.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which clear and acceptable counter-evidence shows the recorded wording does not reflect the parties' agreement, since the wording binds only in the absence of such evidence.
- A case in which the delivered property shows no defect obstructing use and enjoyment for the purpose fixed by the contract.
- A claim against a person who is not the landlord under the lease, since the duty runs from the landlord to the tenant.
Record verification notes
Set the written lease and its wording against the file, together with anything offered as counter-evidence. Then identify the obstacle to use for the contractual purpose, here the change of use to a factory on 11 November 2016 and the resulting impossibility of a new convenience store registration or tobacco retailer designation, and keep the tenant's obligations under the franchise transfer documents separate from the landlord's own duty.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 당사자 사이에 법률행위의 해석을 둘러싸고 다툼이 있어 처분문서에 나타난 당사자의 의사해석이 문제 되는 경우, 처분문서를 해석하는 방법 [2] 임대인의 임차목적물 인도의무의 내용 / 임대인의 임차목적물 사용·수익상태 유지의무가 임대인의 귀책사유 없이 하자가 발생한 경우 면해지는지 여부(소극) 및 임대인이 그와 같은 하자 발생 사실을 몰랐거나 임차인이 이를 알거나 알 수 있었더라도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where a dispute exists between the parties over the interpretation of a juristic act, and the interpretation of the parties' intent as manifested in a dispositive document is at issue, the method of interpreting the dispositive document [2] The content of the lessor's duty to deliver the leased object / Whether the lessor's duty to maintain the leased object in a state of use and profit is relieved where a defect arises without any attributable cause of the lessor (negative) and whether the same applies even where the lessor was unaware of the occurrence of such a defect or the lessee knew or could have known of it (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 처분문서는 그 성립의 진정함이 인정되는 이상 법원은 그 기재 내용을 부인할 만한 분명하고도 수긍할 수 있는 반증이 없으면 처분문서에 기재된 문언대로 의사표시의 존재와 내용을 인정하여야 한다. 당사자 사이에 법률행위의 해석을 둘러싸고 다툼이 있어 처분문서에 나타난 당사자의 의사해석이 문제 되는 경우에는 문언의 내용, 법률행위가 이루어진 동기와 경위, 법률행위로써 달성하려는 목적, 당사자의 진정한 의사 등을 종합적으로 고찰하여 논리와 경험칙에 따라 합리적으로 해석하여야 한다. [2] 임대인은 임차인이 목적물을 사용·수익할 수 있도록 목적물을 임차인에게 인도하여야 한다(민법 제623조 전단). 임차인이 계약에 의하여 정하여진 목적에 따라 사용·수익하는 데 하자가 있는 목적물인 경우 임대인은 하자를 제거한 다음 임차인에게 하자 없는 목적물을 인도할 의무가 있다. 임대인이 임차인에게 그와 같은 하자를 제거하지 아니하고 목적물을 인도하였다면 사후에라도 위 하자를 제거하여 임차인이 목적물을 사용·수익하는 데 아무런 장해가 없도록 해야만 한다. 임대인의 임차목적물의 사용·수익상태 유지의무는 임대인 자신에게 귀책사유가 있어 하자가 발생한 경우는 물론, 자신에게 귀책사유가 없이 하자가 발생한 경우에도 면해지지 아니한다. 또한 임대인이 그와 같은 하자 발생 사실을 몰랐다거나 반대로 임차인이 이를 알거나 알 수 있었다고 하더라도 마찬가지이다.
Order
1. 원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 피고 동양전자산업 주식회사에 대한 손해배상청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다. 2. 원고의 피고 동양전자산업 주식회사에 대한 나머지 상고와 피고 2에 대한 상고를 모두 기각한다. 3. 원고와 피고 2 사이의 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
1. The portion of the judgment of the court below dismissing the plaintiff's claim, insofar as it concerns the claim for damages against the defendant Dongyang Electronics Industry Co., Ltd., is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court. 2. All remaining appeals of the plaintiff against the defendant Dongyang Electronics Industry Co., Ltd. and the appeals against Defendant 2 are dismissed. 3. The costs of the final appeal between the plaintiff and Defendant 2 shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제105조 [2] 민법 제623조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger