임대인의 수선의무의 범위에 대한 고찰 -대법원 2012.3.29. 선고 2011다107405【손해배상】판결을 중심으로-

Delimiting a range of compensation for damages hasn’t received little attention in the academia compared to a study on the cause of compensation bonds for damages. However a plaintiff has a strong interest in how much money she or he can get in damages as well as she or he can be awarded or not. Therefore a defendant and plaintiff have debated the range of compensation for damages many times although the issue is clear who has responsibility for in process of the lawsuit. As a result, there is a lot of case law in this field. Consequently the range of compensation for damages has been developed by case law not by discussion in academia. Especially the principle of a limitation on liability in the range of compensation for damages has been built and developed by case law before the last ten years. Lots of case that has been excluded from the range of compensation by restriction with lots of reasons but those damages were included in the range and compensated before. When the court selects new reasons , they have been concerning about where to find the legal legitimacy of a cause of the restriction constantly. The object judgement is that the damage is from the flooding which is caused from the torrential rain is the lessor of the contractual responsibility about the lessee or not, in other words, it is the responsibility that the lessor should keep the object of lease suitable for profits or use during the contract retention. As the integrated case law until now, the responsibility of the lessor is not only what is caused from the lessor but also what isn’t caused ; from a impartial burden of the damages perspective, the cause is from the natural forces and so on, the court has settled as the mitigation of the damages as far as it is appropriate to be restriction of the lessor. So a principle of law should not be made up as the lessor is exonerated from the responsibility because of the damages from the unexpected natural disaster but should be made up as the lessor’s responsibility is reduced. That is accorded with the social justice and the case law so far.