beta
수원지방법원 2016.02.19 2015나28170

보증금반환

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff as added at the trial.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 13, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, and the term of lease from April 13, 2013 to April 12, 2015, with respect to the part of the “humping rooms and second floor auction rooms adjacent to a bath shop in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Mali-gu” among Eaba, Ma101.

B. On November 5, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract on the use of bathing facilities (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff on the part of “the left side part of the sugar and the bath room (hereinafter “the instant lease object”)” in the said E-Ba, setting the deposit amount of KRW 20 million from November 8, 2014 to November 7, 2015, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant on the date of the contract.

C. On December 8, 2014, the Defendant delivered the instant leased object to the Plaintiff. On January 20, 2015, the Defendant returned KRW 10 million out of the deposit to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff is primarily responsible for the determination of the primary claim. The defendant asserts that even though he had already leased the part of the "humping room and second floor auction room" including the leased object of this case to C, the leased object of this case was leased twice to the plaintiff and did not use or benefit from the leased object of this case due to the act of interference with business of C. Since the contract of this case was concluded by returning a part of the lease deposit, the defendant is liable for the remainder of the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million and delay damages.

As seen earlier, the object of the lease agreement between the Defendant and C on April 13, 2013 is “hump and second floor auction,” and the Defendant’s consent to the use of the facility under the instant agreement overlaps with the part of the bath room as “hump and bath room.” However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings.