임차보증금반환
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 29, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Around 2004, the Plaintiff leased 301, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, a house owned by the Defendant, to 35 million won, the deposit for the lease on October 25, 2008, with an increase of 5 million won from the deposit for the lease as of October 25, 2008, the term of the lease was set at between October 25, 2008 and October 24, 2010. Since the lease was extended by implied renewal, the Plaintiff was forced to move to the Plaintiff due to redevelopment project, etc., the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to terminate the said lease on March 15, 2016, and then the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties or was recognized by adding up the overall purport of pleading evidence Nos. 1 and 6.
Therefore, the above lease contract was terminated on June 15, 2016 after three months from the date when the plaintiff's termination notice was given. It is referred to in Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and upon the termination of the above lease contract, the defendant is obligated to return the above lease deposit to the plaintiff.
In regard to this, the defendant asserted that he would accept the return of the above lease deposit when receiving the settlement money from the partnership, etc., but the relation between the above partnership and redevelopment cannot be a ground for defense against the plaintiff's duty to return the lease deposit. Thus, the above argument is difficult to accept without further review.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won due to the return of the lease deposit and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from June 29, 2016 to the day of full payment, under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking this payment is justified, and it