임대차보증금반환 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 1, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on 266.77 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the first floor of factories located in Seoul, B, and the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant real estate upon delivery around that time.
On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease contract again by setting the deposit amount of KRW 45 million, KRW 2.6 million per month, and the period on May 31, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for delivery of a building on the ground of the expiration of the period of validity and the delay of rent. On December 7, 2016, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Kadan117538, and the instant real estate is transferred to the Defendant by no later than April 15, 2017, which was pending the said lawsuit. However, the Defendant is exempted from the Plaintiff’s restoration obligation. However, the Defendant is exempted from the Plaintiff’s restoration obligation, on December 2, 201, from paying KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff immediately after receipt of paragraph (1). However, it is confirmed that the payment of the director’s expenses is not exempt or reduced from the obligation to pay monthly rent or management expenses, etc. to the Defendant. 3. The Plaintiff did not notify the outside of the instant conciliation content.
C. On April 17, 2017 and December 18, 2017, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million on two occasions, and KRW 5 million on July 24, 2018, respectively, returned all of the deposit received under the instant lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On April 15, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) even though the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on April 15, 2017, the Plaintiff was not immediately refunded KRW 5 million out of the lease deposit; (b) so, the Defendant returned the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff from April 16, 2017 following the date of delivery of the instant real estate until July 24, 2018.