〈Case in which the issue was whether a right of indemnity may be exercised, in the legal relationship among co-heirs pursuant to an adjudication on division of inherited property, for a lease deposit returned and property tax paid〉[Gong 2024Ha, 1561]

【Holding】

[1] Whether a person who acquired ownership of a leased building by inheritance constitutes a ‘transferee of the leased building’ under Article 3(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (affirmative), and whether the obligation of co-lessors who jointly succeeded to the status of lessor to return the lease deposit is an indivisible obligation (affirmative) / The meaning of ‘share of inheritance’ under Article 1007 of the Civil Act (= statutory share of inheritance) / Where one of the heirs who jointly succeeded to the status of lessor obtains joint discharge by performance or the like, whether that heir may seek indemnity from the other co-heirs according to their statutory shares of inheritance (affirmative)

[2] Where, in an adjudication on division of inherited property, the inherited property was divided by a method whereby a specific item of inherited property among the inherited property subject to division was made the sole property of one of the co-heirs and the difference between that co-heir's specific share of inheritance and the value of that specific item of inherited property was settled in cash, and that specific item of inherited property is the object of a lease that satisfied the requirements for opposability under Article 3(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, whether that co-heir assumes the obligation to return the lease deposit with discharge of the others (affirmative), and whether the other co-heirs withdraw from the lease relationship and are released from the obligation to return the lease deposit to the lessee (affirmative) / In such a case, whether the internal shares of the burden of the obligation to return the lease deposit among the co-heirs according to their statutory shares of inheritance are maintained as they are (affirmative in principle), and where the co-heir who became the sole owner of the leased object later returns the lease deposit, whether that co-heir may seek indemnity from the other co-heirs (affirmative)

[3] Whether co-heirs are jointly and severally liable to pay property tax imposed on inherited property while they co-own the inherited property according to their respective statutory shares of inheritance (affirmative), and where one of them obtains joint discharge by paying such property tax, whether that co-heir may seek indemnity from the other co-heirs according to their respective statutory shares of inheritance (affirmative in principle) / Where the property tax paid was not taken into account in a procedure for division of inherited property that proceeded without indemnity having been sought, whether that co-heir may still seek indemnity from the other co-heirs even though a division of inherited property was made whereby that inherited property became the sole property of the co-heir who paid the property tax (affirmative)

【Summary of Decision】

[1] Article 3 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, under the heading ‘Opposability, etc.,’ sets forth the requirements for opposability in paragraph (1) and provides in paragraph (2) that “a transferee of the leased building (including any other person who has succeeded to the right to lease) shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of the lessor.” A person who acquired ownership of the leased building by inheritance also constitutes a transferee of the leased building within the meaning of the above provision. The obligation of co-lessors who jointly succeeded to the status of lessor to return the lease deposit is, by its nature, an indivisible obligation. Where an indivisible obligor obtains joint discharge by performance or the like, that obligor may seek indemnity for the other obligors' shares of the burden. Article 1007 of the Civil Act provides that “co-heirs succeed to the rights and obligations of the decedent in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance,” and the ‘share of inheritance’ under that provision means the statutory share of inheritance. Accordingly, where one of the heirs who jointly succeeded to the status of lessor obtains joint discharge by performance or the like, that heir may seek indemnity from the other co-heirs according to their statutory shares of inheritance.

[2] Where, in an adjudication on division of inherited property, the inherited property was divided by a method whereby a specific item of inherited property among the inherited property subject to division was made the sole property of one of the co-heirs and the difference between that co-heir's specific share of inheritance and the value of that specific item of inherited property was settled in cash (the so-called method of compensatory division), and that specific item of inherited property is the object of a lease that satisfied the requirements for opposability under Article 3(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, that co-heir assumes the obligation to return the lease deposit with discharge of the others, and the other co-heirs withdraw from the lease relationship and are released from the obligation to return the lease deposit to the lessee. However, if, in the adjudication on division of inherited property, the obligation to return the lease deposit was excluded from the subject of division, and the co-heir who came to inherit the leased object solely assumes the obligation to return the lease deposit with discharge of the others while paying the other co-heirs a difference calculated in a manner that does not take such assumption of obligation into account, that co-heir may bear a burden more onerous than was originally intended in the division of inherited property, which is unreasonable. In such a case, unless there are special circumstances justifying the other co-heirs' release from the obligation to return the lease deposit, the internal shares of the burden of the obligation to return the lease deposit among the co-heirs according to their statutory shares of inheritance are maintained as they are, and where the co-heir who became the sole owner of the leased object later returns the lease deposit, that co-heir may seek indemnity from the other co-heirs.

[3] Article 1007 of the Civil Act provides that “co-heirs succeed to the rights and obligations of the decedent in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance,” and since the ‘share of inheritance’ under that provision means the statutory share of inheritance, once inheritance commences, the co-heirs succeed to all of the inherited property according to the ratio of their respective statutory shares of inheritance. Furthermore, Article 1006 of the Civil Act provides that “where there are several heirs, the inherited property shall be co-owned by them,” and thus, from the commencement of inheritance until the division of the inherited property, the co-heirs co-own it according to their respective statutory shares of inheritance pursuant to Article 1007 of the Civil Act. In addition, co-owners are jointly and severally liable to pay local taxes relating to co-owned property, and Article 425 of the Civil Act concerning the right of indemnity of an obligor who has made an outlay applies mutatis mutandis thereto (Article 2(1) subparagraph 22 and Article 44(1) and (5) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes).

Meanwhile, Article 1015 of the Civil Act, by providing that “the division of inherited property shall take effect retroactively to the time of commencement of inheritance; provided, however, that it shall not prejudice the rights of third parties,” recognizes the retroactive effect of the division of inherited property; however, even though retroactive effect is recognized for the division of inherited property, the very fact that the co-heirs were in a co-ownership relationship with respect to the inherited property after the commencement of inheritance is not retroactively extinguished.

Accordingly, the co-heirs are jointly and severally liable to pay property tax imposed on the inherited property while they co-own the inherited property according to their respective statutory shares of inheritance as described above, and where one of them obtains joint discharge by paying such property tax, that co-heir may, absent special circumstances, seek indemnity from the other co-heirs according to their respective statutory shares of inheritance. Furthermore, where the procedure for division of inherited property proceeds without indemnity having been sought, the property tax so paid may be taken into account in that procedure; but if it was not taken into account, that co-heir may still seek indemnity from the other co-heirs even though a division of inherited property was made whereby that inherited property became the sole property of the co-heir who paid the property tax.

【Referenced Statutes】

[1] Article 3(1) and (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, Articles 411, 425, and 1007 of the Civil Act [2] Article 3(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, Articles 411, 425, 1007, and 1013 of the Civil Act [3] Articles 425, 1006, 1007, and 1015 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1) subparagraph 22 and Article 44(1) and (5) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes

【Referenced Precedents】

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2020Da208195, July 9, 2020 (Gong 2020Ha, 1589)
Supreme Court Decision 2015Da59801, January 28, 2021 (Gong 2021Sang, 453)
Supreme Court Decision 2020Da292626, April 27, 2023 (Gong 2023Sang, 898)
[2] Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523, January 17, 2013 (en banc) (Gong 2013Sang, 318)
[3] Supreme Court Decision 2020Du34841, July 9, 2020
Supreme Court Decision 2020Da292626, April 27, 2023 (Gong 2023Sang, 898)

(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2023Da318857, August 1, 2024 [Return of Unjust Enrichment] > Comprehensive Legal Information, Precedents)