보증금반환
1. The Defendant’s KRW 300,000,000 as well as annual 5% from December 21, 2017 to May 10, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred part of 65.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the portion of the first floor pharmacy”) among the buildings listed in the attached Table F (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) located in the Silung City’s Schedule (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) located in C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “Lessee”) from the Defendant on March 8, 2016 to the deposit amount of 300,000,000, and the period from March 14, 2016 to March 13, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant sub-lease contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a deposit of 300,000,000,000 won for the instant sub-lease contract from the said date.
A lease agreement on the instant building between the Defendant and the lessor was terminated as the Defendant’s delinquency in payment. On November 29, 2017, the Defendant and the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the lessor by no later than December 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff moves out of the part of the first floor pharmacy until December 31, 2017. In the event of nonperformance, the Plaintiff would gratuitously transfer all the ownership of corporeal movables in the instant building to the lessor.
'Written commitment' was made.
On November 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant sub-lease contract was terminated on the ground that it was no longer possible for the Defendant to use and take profits from the part of the first floor pharmacy. On December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff left the part of the first floor pharmacy.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire argument is terminated between the defendant and landlords, and as the plaintiff promised to leave the part of the first floor pharmacy, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's obligation against the plaintiff to use and take profits from the part of the first floor pharmacy which is the object of sub-lease has become impossible under social norms. Thus, the sub-lease contract of this case has the plaintiff expressed the defendant's intention to terminate the sub-lease contract of this case on the ground that the above performance is impossible. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28210, Nov. 1, 2017