임대차보증금반환
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
2. The defendant.
1. The following facts are found either as a matter of dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap 1, 2, 3, and Eul 3-1, 3-2, and the whole purport of arguments:
A. On July 4, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the 4th, Busan High School C Apartment Building No. 207, Busan High School (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute practice room”) with a lease deposit of KRW 50 million and KRW 2,200,000 per month, and around that time, paid the lease deposit to the Defendant, and received delivery from the Defendant of the instant private teaching institute practice room.
B. On July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 55 million, KRW 2.3 million per month, KRW 2.3 million per month (payment after the 9th of each month), and July 8, 2015, and paid the increased lease deposit to the Defendant around that time.
(hereinafter) The above lease agreement as of July 4, 201 and the renewed contract as of July 8, 2013 are collectively referred to as “instant lease agreement.”
After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff was operating the Pianian Private Teaching Institute under the trade name “D Music Private Teaching Institutes” in the instant private teaching institute practice room. On August 16, 2013, the Plaintiff was notified of the administrative disposition ordering the Plaintiff to restore the original state to its original state (hereinafter “instant administrative disposition”).
On March 2014, the Plaintiff suspended the operation of a private teaching institute in the instant private teaching institute practice room, removed from the said building, and returned the key to the instant private teaching institute practice room to the Defendant around May 28, 2014.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The purpose of the contract is no longer possible for the Plaintiff to operate a normal private teaching institute in the instant private teaching institute practice room, if he/she reinstates the practice room voluntarily changed due to the instant administrative disposition.
Therefore, this case.