임대차보증금
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 7,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from April 19, 2014.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 and the testimony of the witness C as a whole. A.
On May 1, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease an unauthorized building located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from May 2007, and thereafter extended it, and finally, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant from May 1, 201 to May 30, 201, which is set forth as the lease deposit amount of KRW 7,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, and the term of lease from May 1, 2011
B. On January 28, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a sublease contract with E by setting the deposit amount of KRW 6 million, monthly rent of KRW 900,000, and the lease term from February 7, 2012 to May 7, 2013.
C. On April 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the lease contract will not be renewed.
On June 1, 2013, the defendant concluded a lease contract with E on the above unauthorized building.
2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant unilaterally reversed the lease agreement without the expiration of the term of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and sought reimbursement of KRW 7,000,000 due to the termination of the lease agreement, and damages equivalent to the premium not recovered due to the termination of the lease agreement, and KRW 7,600,000,000 (total of revenues in direct business and revenues in direct business) and the amount equivalent to KRW 20,00,000,000, which were incurred due to the failure to use the leased object due to the termination of the lease agreement.
B. First, we examine the claim for return of the lease deposit.
According to the above facts, since the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated, the defendant did not request that the plaintiff be entitled to deposit KRW 7,000,000 and that of the lease object after delivery.