보증금반환
1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time. 51,970,000 won shall be applied to the plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of branch numbers), the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on April 16, 2012 that leases a building listed in the separate sheet with the defendant for lease deposit amounting to KRW 52,00,000,00, and from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2014, and the plaintiff asserted that the lease agreement was concluded with the defendant for lease deposit amounting to KRW 5,00,000, and KRW 5,000 through April 16 and 17, 2012, from May 8, 2012 to June 1, 2012, the plaintiff did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the lease agreement was terminated by 100,500,000 won as above, but there was no reason to acknowledge that the remainder of the lease deposit was paid to the defendant.
Therefore, since the above lease contract was terminated as the expiration of the lease term, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff KRW 51,970,000.
2. The defendant's defense argues that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until the building entered in the separate sheet is delivered from the plaintiff, so the above lease contract is terminated, as seen earlier, and since the fact that the plaintiff occupies the building entered in the separate sheet does not conflict between the parties, the plaintiff has a duty to deliver the building entered in the separate sheet to the defendant, and the obligation to return the above lease deposit to the defendant is related to the plaintiff's duty of delivery.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.
3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff and pay the plaintiff KRW 51,970,000 to the plaintiff at the same time. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.