보증금반환
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from November 21, 2017 to November 30, 2018.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 90,000,000,000, and the term of lease from November 21, 2015 to November 20, 2017, under which the Plaintiff leases the building D (hereinafter “instant house”) of the Guangsi-si Seoul Special Metropolitan City from the Defendant.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement.” Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 18 million, and the remainder KRW 72 million was paid with a loan from the E Bank around January 7, 2016.
B. On October 9, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement, and left the instant house on November 17, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was terminated at the expiration of the lease term, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the deposit amount of KRW 90 million to the plaintiff and its delay damages.
B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the defendant made the plaintiff as the principal deposit and deposited all of the deposit amount of KRW 90 million and its delay damages.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant deposited KRW 90,00,00 in the court’s gold No. 486 in March 6, 2018 (hereinafter “first deposit”) on the ground that “the defendant, on the ground that he/she would have deposited the plaintiff as the principal of the deposit, but would have refused to receive the deposit,” and the defendant again deposited the plaintiff as the principal and interest in arrears on June 29, 2018, on the ground that “the principal and interest in arrears were actually provided to the victim, but the receipt of the remaining principal and interest shall be refused” (hereinafter “second deposit”).