임대인의 동의 있는 전대차에서 당사자들의 관계 - 대법원 2018. 7. 11. 선고 2018다200518 판결 -

Article 630 of the Civil Code is a provision to protect the lessor in the sub-lease with the consent of the lessor. As such, this provision imposes a direct obligation on the sub-lessee to the lessor. However, the sub-lessee cannot set a defense against the lessor by a payment of the rent to the sub-lessor. The judgment suggests a meaningful interpretation of whether this defense is possible. Three issues were considered in this regard. First, if the contents of the contract are changed by agreement between the sub-lessor and the sub-lessee during the existence of the sub-lease, the sub-lessee may claim the changed contents to the lessor as well. The judgment affirms this, and this conclusion is acceptable. Second, the obligations of the lessee and the sub-lessee are untrue joint and several obligations. The judgment does not explicitly state this, but it seems to presuppose this, and it's also justified. Third, the judgment holds that if the sub-lessor paid the rent to the sub-lease prior to the period of the performance of the sub-lease, the sub-lessee may not set a defense against the lessor by that payment. Moreover, it is the conclusion of the judgment that the sub-lessee can set a defense against the lessor if the rent is paid to the lessor after that period, or if the period for performance of the sub-lease is earlier than the lessor's claim for rent even if the rent was paid to the lesser before the period of performance of the sub-lease. However, such an interpretation can be criticized in that it is contrary to the purpose of Article 630 (1), that it does not clearly presuppose the relationship between the lessor's right and the sub-lessor's right, and that it cannot be recognized in terms of literary interpretation. Therefore, the sub-lessee may not set a defense against the lessor, regardless of when the rent is paid.