보증금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C502 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant to KRW 30,000,000, KRW 2,200,000 (including value-added tax on the last day of each month) of lease deposit, and the term of lease from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, and operated an office by moving into the instant real estate around July 1, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
D, on May 29, 2013, sent e-mail to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff as the employee of the Plaintiff, proposed that the lease deposit and the rent should be maintained at the expiration of the lease term, but if the Plaintiff notified the termination of the lease without setting the lease term, the renewal contract should be concluded with the termination of the lease 45 days after the termination of the lease. Accordingly, on May 30, 2013, the Defendant urged D to include the condition that the Plaintiff would seek a new lessee in order to terminate the lease contract, or to renew the contract under the same condition as the existing lease contract.
C. After doing so, D and the Defendant continued the consultation as above, but did not reach an agreement on the terms and conditions of the contract, and the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to prepare the contract under the same conditions as the existing lease agreement on July 25, 2013.
However, around August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail, “the termination of the lease”, and notified the Defendant of the refund of the lease deposit, as it intends to order and leave the instant real estate on September 30, 2013, and the said notification reached the Defendant on August 10, 2013.
E. On September 23, 2013, the Defendant received the above notification and sent it to D, and on September 23, 2013, the lease of this case remains for three months from the date of arrival of the above notification, and until then, to the Plaintiff.