소멸시효 완성된 채권에 의한 상계와 공제-대법원 2021. 2. 10. 선고 2017다258787 판결-

In accordance with the faithful interpretation of Articles 495 and 626 (2) of the Civil Act, this target judgment judged that it could not be offset because the beneficial reimbursement bond, which is a passive bond, has not yet occurred until the extinctive prescription is completed. However, in general lease practices, instead of having the lessor reduce the rent from the tenant, the tenant pays various utility bills from the rental object, and the bonds paid by the lessor in this case can be considered to have a strong nature of rent bonds. In addition, the above beneficial redemption bond have a common property of solidarity, and tenants can claim strong rights based on the relationship between the beneficial redemption bond and the leaseholder only. Since the above utility bill-related debt has the nature of overdue rent and beneficial redemption bond have a deposit nature, I think the nature of the above benefit should have been considered in this case by applying the law of the precedent that the extinctive prescription can be completed in the lease. In addition, if the lessee agreed to pay the utility bill but did not pay it, the lessor should be considered to have a reasonable expected profit and a belief that the utility bill-related cost will be offset or deducted from the benefit when the lease is terminated.