임대차보증금반환
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 23,00,000 as well as the full payment from March 27, 2015.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The land of this case is owned by the Defendant and the Defendant’s mother, on August 14, 2006, in Ansan-si, in 2,661 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). < Amended by Act No. 7885, Aug. 14, 2006>
B. On July 21, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the cement block structure, straw-projected straw-projected 82.6 square meters (unauthorized housing; hereinafter “instant housing”) located on the said land by setting the deposit amount of KRW 23,00,000, and the period from July 26, 2010 to July 25, 2012.
C. On July 21, 2010, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a deposit of KRW 23,000,000 for the instant lease agreement, and began to reside on the delivery of the instant house.
On November 1, 2013, when the instant lease agreement was renewed and continued, there was a fire (hereinafter “first fire”) in the instant housing due to the negligence on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff (in handling as portable gas) and the amount of half of the said housing was lost.
E. After the first fire of this case, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the instant house while electricity and gas supply had been cut down. On February 14, 2014, a fire presumed to be a portable gas rail in the instant house (hereinafter “the second fire”) occurred and the entire housing was destroyed.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 through 4, 7 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine the judgment on the claim of this case. The lease contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded, and the plaintiff paid 23,000,000 won to the defendant, and the fact that the housing of this case was destroyed due to the first and second fire of this case, and the purpose of the lease contract of this case became impossible to be achieved is as above. The above contract was concluded due to the impossibility of achieving the purpose of the lease contract.