임대인의 전차인에 대한 직접청구권 = Lessor’s Right of Direct Claim against Subtenant

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This Article 630, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code is based on Japan’s Civil Code Article 613, which must be understood in relation to Japan’s Civil Code Article 314, which regulates the lessor’s pre-emptive privilege for sublease claims. However, unlike Japan, our Civil Code does not recognize pre-emptive privileges and instead regulates statutory liens on sublease claims. Furthermore, Article 630 of our Civil Code does not inquire whether the sublease payment was made ‘in advance.’ Therefore, it is necessary to contemplate the interpretation of Article 630 and the direction of legislation based on our legal situation, without being bound by discussions based on Japan’s Civil Code provisions.
The sublessee can resist the lessor’s claim even after the direct payment request has been made. When recognizing the prohibition of payment effects or other specific legal effects in response to the lessor’s direct payment request, consideration must be given to the relationship with other creditors of the lessee. If the prohibition of payment effects is acknowledged and the reimbursement of the sublessee to the sublessor is restricted, a prior consideration of how much protection the lessor should receive, i.e., a consideration of the priority between the lessor and other creditors of the lessee, is required. Considering the underutilization of various statutory liens recognized by our Civil Code and the fact that the majority of opinions and precedents interpret Article 630 of the Civil Code as a provision on the lessor’s priority reimbursement rights, it is valid to view Article 630, Paragraph 1, as a simple means of payment rather than a direct claim right as a means of guaranteeing the lessor’s priority reimbursement rights. Therefore, the exercise of such a direct claim right by the lessor, in itself, does not limit reimbursement against the sublessor.