손해배상 등 청구의 소
1. Defendants B and C shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 42,00,000 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from June 18, 2015 to July 15, 2015.
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The Plaintiff’s recognition 1) On September 2, 2013, the Defendant C and the residential building that represented Defendant B (Secheon-gu E apartment operation 402, hereinafter “instant housing”).
A) The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with respect to the instant housing. The content of the lease agreement is to lease the instant housing from Defendant B by determining from October 28, 2013 to October 27, 2015, with the period of KRW 45,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 150,000, and the period of KRW 150,000 from October 28, 2013. At the time, the instant housing was leased by Defendant B to the International Trust Company (hereinafter “International Trust”).
(2) On October 19, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,000,000,000 as the intermediate payment, and KRW 35,000,000 as the remainder on October 28, 2013, as the lease deposit, through Defendant C, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,00,000,00 as the lease deposit.
At that time, Defendant B agreed to immediately refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff when the problem of using the instant house arises due to the lessor’s circumstances.
3) On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff, upon receiving the instant house from Defendant B, resided in the Republic of Korea on the grounds that the Plaintiff illegally occupied the instant house without entering into an international trust and a lease agreement with the owner. 4) The Plaintiff, upon the request of the international trust, transferred the instant house to the international trust prior to the closing of argument, upon the request of the international trust.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the fact that the duty to return the lease deposit was established, the Plaintiff was already returned to the Plaintiff, pursuant to the agreement, since the Plaintiff’s failure to use the leased object was caused due to the circumstances on the part of Defendant B, a lessor, due to the circumstances on the part of Defendant B, and accordingly, Defendant B was already returned to the Plaintiff.