Earticle

초록

영어

Where a lease has been terminated but the landlord fails to return the lease deposit, so that the tenant continues to possess and use the leased premises, the legal nature and scope of the tenant's monetary obligation is directly connected to determining the amount of the deposit the landlord must return. Earlier practice generally characterized the benefit derived from such continued use as unjust enrichment and calculated the amount on the basis of the actual or market rent at the time of use. However, in its decision of July 14, 2011, 2010Da82745, the Supreme Court held that, with respect to residential leases, the tenant's possession before the return of the deposit has a legal basis by virtue of the provision deeming the lease relationship to continue, so that unjust enrichment equivalent to rent does not arise. In its decision of November 9, 2023, 2023Da257600, the Court confirmed the same principle for commercial building leases and further held that, until the deposit is returned, the tenant is merely obliged to pay the rent stipulated in the former lease agreement, and is not obliged to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the market rent. Centering on the subject decision, this article examines the legislative purpose and function of the provisions deeming a lease to subsist under Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 9(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. On that basis, and by comprehensively reviewing the relevant statutes, decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower courts, scholarly opinions, and the pertinent provisions of the German Civil Code, this article focuses on analyzing whether the monetary obligation borne by a lessee during the subsistence of a statutory deemed leasehold relationship constitutes a contractual obligation to pay the agreed rent, an obligation to make restitution of unjust enrichment, or a separate statutory obligation. The review shows that the subject decision may be assessed favorably from the standpoint of lessee protection: where the market rent rises during the period in which the lessor fails to perform its obligation to return the lease deposit, the decision does not shift that risk onto the lessee but confines the scope of the lessee's monetary payment to the previously agreed rent, thereby contributing to the substantive securing of the lessee's claim for the return of the deposit. Nevertheless, this article also identifies certain doctrinal limitations and difficulties of application in the subject decision, in that (i) on the wording of each of the above lease protection Acts, the statutory deemed leasehold relationship is properly understood not as a relationship in which the previous contract is actually extended, but as one whose subsistence is temporarily deemed to continue until the deposit is returned; and (ii) unlike the case of a rise in the market rent, applying the agreed rent as a uniform standard even where the market rent has fallen, where the lessee holds possession of the object but does not in substance use and enjoy it, or where the lease has been terminated on grounds attributable to the lessee, may run counter to the lessee-protective purpose of the provisions deeming the leasehold relationship to subsist and to equity between the parties. Accordingly, this article proposes that the lessee's monetary obligation under a statutory deemed leasehold relationship be construed as an independent “statutory rent,” distinct both from the agreed rent and from a purely restitutionary obligation for unjust enrichment. It is submitted that statutory rent should arise only where the lessee has in substance used and enjoyed the object; that its amount should, in principle, be calculated by reference to the market rent prevailing at the time of such use and enjoyment; and that the rent agreed under the previous lease contract should operate as a ceiling on that amount. Where, however, the lease contract has been terminated on grounds attributable to the lessee, such as delinquency in the payment of rent, the application of the above ceiling should exceptionally be excluded in consideration of equity between the parties. Furthermore, this article confirms that once the lessor has returned the deposit in full, or has made a valid tender of performance with respect to the entire balance remaining after permissible deductions, the statutory deemed leasehold relationship is extinguished; thereafter, the legal relationship arising from the lessee's possession is resolved solely as a matter of restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the market rent, and no further question of statutory rent grounded in a statutory deemed leasehold relationship arises. Finally, in order to clarify this doctrine of statutory rent and to secure legal certainty and predictability in its application, this article proposes legislative supplementation of Article 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 9 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act so as to specify expressly the requirements for the accrual of statutory rent, the standards for its calculation, and the exceptions thereto. Where a lease has been terminated but the landlord fails to return the lease deposit, so that the tenant continues to possess and use the leased premises, the legal nature and scope of the tenant's monetary obligation is directly connected to determining the amount of the deposit the landlord must return. Earlier practice generally characterized the benefit derived from such continued use as unjust enrichment and calculated the amount on the basis of the actual or market rent at the time of use. However, in its decision of July 14, 2011, 2010Da82745, the Supreme Court held that, with respect to residential leases, the tenant's possession before the return of the deposit has a legal basis by virtue of the provision deeming the lease relationship to continue, so that unjust enrichment equivalent to rent does not arise. In its decision of November 9, 2023, 2023Da257600, the Court confirmed the same principle for commercial building leases and further held that, until the deposit is returned, the tenant is merely obliged to pay the rent stipulated in the former lease agreement, and is not obliged to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the market rent. Centering on the subject decision, this article examines the legislative purpose and function of the provisions deeming a lease to subsist under Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 9(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. On that basis, and by comprehensively reviewing the relevant statutes, decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower courts, scholarly opinions, and the pertinent provisions of the German Civil Code, this article focuses on analyzing whether the monetary obligation borne by a lessee during the subsistence of a statutory deemed leasehold relationship constitutes a contractual obligation to pay the agreed rent, an obligation to make restitution of unjust enrichment, or a separate statutory obligation. The review shows that the subject decision may be assessed favorably from the standpoint of lessee protection: where the market rent rises during the period in which the lessor fails to perform its obligation to return the lease deposit, the decision does not shift that risk onto the lessee but confines the scope of the lessee's monetary payment to the previously agreed rent, thereby contributing to the substantive securing of the lessee's claim for the return of the deposit. Nevertheless, this article also identifies certain doctrinal limitations and difficulties of application in the subject decision, in that (i) on the wording of each of the above lease protection Acts, the statutory deemed leasehold relationship is properly understood not as a relationship in which the previous contract is actually extended, but as one whose subsistence is temporarily deemed to continue until the deposit is returned; and (ii) unlike the case of a rise in the market rent, applying the agreed rent as a uniform standard even where the market rent has fallen, where the lessee holds possession of the object but does not in substance use and enjoy it, or where the lease has been terminated on grounds attributable to the lessee, may run counter to the lessee-protective purpose of the provisions deeming the leasehold relationship to subsist and to equity between the parties. Accordingly, this article proposes that the lessee's monetary obligation under a statutory deemed leasehold relationship be construed as an independent “statutory rent,” distinct both from the agreed rent and from a purely restitutionary obligation for unjust enrichment. It is submitted that statutory rent should arise only where the lessee has in substance used and enjoyed the object; that its amount should, in principle, be calculated by reference to the market rent prevailing at the time of such use and enjoyment; and that the rent agreed under the previous lease contract should operate as a ceiling on that amount. Where, however, the lease contract has been terminated on grounds attributable to the lessee, such as delinquency in the payment of rent, the application of the above ceiling should exceptionally be excluded in consideration of equity between the parties. Furthermore, this article confirms that once the lessor has returned the deposit in full, or has made a valid tender of performance with respect to the entire balance remaining after permissible deductions, the statutory deemed leasehold relationship is extinguished; thereafter, the legal relationship arising from the lessee's possession is resolved solely as a matter of restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the market rent, and no further question of statutory rent grounded in a statutory deemed leasehold relationship arises. Finally, in order to clarify this doctrine of statutory rent and to secure legal certainty and predictability in its application, this article proposes legislative supplementation of Article 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 9 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act so as to specify expressly the requirements for the accrual of statutory rent, the standards for its calculation, and the exceptions thereto.

한국어

임대차계약이 종료되었음에도 임대인이 임대차보증금을 반환하지 아니하여 임차인이 임차목적물을 계속 점유·사용하는 경우, 임차인이 부담하는 금전지급의무의 법적 성질과 범위는 임대인이 반환하여야 할 보증금의 범위를 확정하는 문제와 직결된다. 종래 실무는 이러한 사용이익을 원칙적으로 부당이득으로 파악하고 사용 당시의 시가 차임 상당액을 기준으로 반환범위를 산정하였다. 그러나 대법원 2011. 7. 14. 선고 2010다82745 판결은 주택임대차에 관하여 보증금을 반환받기 전 임차인의 점유에는 존속 의제 규정에 의한 법률상 원인이 인정되므로 차임 상당의 부당이득이 성립하지 않는다고 판시하였고, 대법원 2023. 11. 9. 선고 2023다257600 판결(이하 ‘대상판결’이라 함)은 위 법리를 상가 임대차에서도 재확인하면서 보증금을 반환받을 때까지 임차인은 종전 임대차계약에서 정한 차임을 지급할 의무를 부담할 뿐이고 시가에 따른 차임 상당의 부당이득금을 지급할 의무를 부담하는 것은 아니라고 판시하였다. 본 논문은 위 대상판결을 중심으로 주택임대차보호법 제4조 제2항 및 상가건물 임대차보호법 제9조 제2항의 법정임대차 의제조항의 입법 취지와 기능을 고찰하고, 나아가 관련 법령, 대법원 및 하급심 판례, 학설, 독일 민법의 관련 규정 등을 검토하여 법정임대차 관계 존속기간 중 임차인의 금전지급의무가 계약상 약정차임 지급의무인지, 부당이득반환의무인지, 아니면 별도의 법정의무인지를 분석하는 데 초점을 두었다. 분석 결과를 종합하면, 대상판결이 임대인의 보증금반환의무 불이행 기간 중 시가 차임이 상승하더라도 그 상승 위험을 임차인에게 전가하지 않고 임차인이 반환하여야 할 금전의 범위를 종전 약정차임으로 제한함으로써 보증금반환채권을 실질적으로 보장하고자 한 점은 임차인 보호 측면에서 긍정적으로 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 대상판결은 다음과 같은 점에서 법리적 한계와 적용상의 문제점도 함께 내포하고 있는 것으로 평가된다. 즉, ① 법정임대차 관계는 위 각 임대차보호법의 문언상 종전 계약이 실제로 연장된 관계가 아니라 보증금 반환 시까지 그 존속이 한시적으로 의제 되는 관계로 해석하는 것이 타당하다. ② 나아가, 시가 차임이 상승한 경우와 달리 시가 차임이 하락한 경우, 임차인이 목적물을 점유하면서도 실질적으로 사용·수익하지 않은 경우, 임차인의 귀책 사유로 임대차가 해지된 경우까지 종전 약정차임을 일률적인 기준으로 적용한다면, 법정임대차 존속 의제 규정의 임차인 보호 취지 및 당사자 간 형평에 반하는 결과를 초래할 수 있다는 점에서 약정차임 기준 적용 사안에 대한 보다 구체적이고 비판적 검토가 필요해 보인다. 이에 본 논문은 법정임대차 관계에서 임차인이 반환해야 하는 금전의 범위를 약정차임 및 순수한 부당이득과 구별되는 독자적인 ‘법정차임’으로 구성하고자 한다. ‘법정차임’은 종래 부당이득반환 법리를 기초로 하여 임차인이 목적물을 실질적으로 사용·수익한 경우에 한하여 발생하는 것으로 보고, 그 액수는 사용·수익 당시의 시가 차임을 기준으로 산정하는 것을 원칙으로 한다. 다만 임대차계약 종료 후 시가 차임 상승으로 인한 불이익이 임차인에게 전가되지 않도록, 종전 임대차계약에서 정한 약정차임을 그 상한으로 정함이 타당하다고 본다. 반면, 차임연체 등 임차인의 책임 있는 사유로 임대차계약이 해지 된 경우에는 당사자 간 형평을 고려하여 약정 차임 상한을 예외적으로 배제하고 시가 차임 변동과 관계없이 종래 부당이득반환 법리에 따라 시가 차임 상당액을 반환하도록 하는 것이 타당하다. 나아가 임대인이 보증금 전액을 반환하거나 공제 후 잔액 전부에 대하여 적법한 이행제공을 한때에는 법정임대차 관계가 소멸하고 그 이후 임차인의 점유에 따른 금전반환 문제는 시가 차임 상당의 부당이득반환 문제로 귀결될 뿐, 법정임대차 관계에 기초한 법정차임 문제는 더 이상 발생하지 않는다는 점을 확인하고자 한다. 마지막으로, 이러한 법정차임의 법리를 명확히 하고 그 적용에 관한 법적 안정성과 예측 가능성을 확보하기 위하여, 주택임대차보호법 제4조 및 상가건물 임대차보호법 제9조에 법정차임의 발생요건, 산정기준 및 그 예외를 명시하는 입법적 보완을 제안하고자 한다.

목차

국문초록
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 법정임대차 의제조항
Ⅲ. 대상판결의 법리와 그 비판
Ⅳ. 법정차임론 제안
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
ABSTRACT

키워드

저자

• 유수연 [ You, Su Yeon | 원광대학교 법학전문대학원 조교수, 변호사 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  원광법학 [Journal of Law research]

• 간기

  계간

• pISSN

  1598-429X

• eISSN

  2508-4526

• 수록기간

  1962~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 360 DDC 340