전세금반환
1. The defendant shall pay 110,000,000 won to the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff leased (205) No. 110,00,000,000 as lease deposit, and two years from January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff leased (205,000,000) from the Defendant for a fixed period of time from January 13, 2012. On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon on the said housing.
B. The above lease agreement was explicitly renewed on January 13, 2014, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease agreement on November 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to the above facts, since the above lease contract has expired on January 13, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay 110,000,000 won to the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff sought damages for delay against the Defendant, but Article 317 of the Civil Act provides that the settlor of chonsegwon shall receive documents necessary for the delivery of the object of chonsegwon and the cancellation registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis from the person having chonsegwon at the time of extinguishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and shall return the deposit at the same time. In principle
In addition, even if the obligor who has a right of defense for simultaneous performance does not perform the obligation within the due date, it does not result in the delay of performance unless the other party first performs his obligation or provides the performance.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da31250 delivered on December 23, 1997, etc.). However, there is no proof of proof as to the Plaintiff’s transfer of the above house to the Defendant or provision of documents cancelling the registration of chonsegwon. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff's remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.