임대차보증금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 20, 2016 to June 29, 2016, and the following.
1. On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the terms that the Plaintiff leases (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) 50,000,000, and the term of lease from February 8, 2014 to February 7, 2016, the lease agreement of this case was terminated as of February 7, 2016; the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the deposit to the Defendant, but the registration of the housing lease was terminated on April 12, 2016; the Plaintiff, on the 14th of the same month, did not conflict between the parties to the instant lease agreement, or did not appear to have agreed on between the parties to the instant housing, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the instant housing, upon request of the Defendant for the return of the deposit, was recognized.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 20, 2016 to May 19, 2016, as the Plaintiff seeks, (the Plaintiff is the person who, after the date of delivery of the instant house, was paid damages for delay from May 20, 2016 to the date of payment from the Defendant’s husband) as the Plaintiff seeks. (The Plaintiff is the person who, after the date of delivery of the instant house to the date of payment to May 19, 2016), the original copy of the instant payment order was delivered to the Defendant by June 29, 2016,
B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant failed to verify whether the housing of this case was defective due to the lack of the password known by the plaintiff.
However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is only recognized to have delivered the instant house to the Defendant, and this recognition is followed, and this case still remains, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion.