보증금반환
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. A.
Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed Party B shall:
1. On November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from D and the selector, with a deposit of KRW 100 million; (b) from November 21, 2013 to April 30, 2014; and (c) paid the said deposit to the Defendant, the agent of D and the selector.
At the time of the conclusion of the above lease agreement, the Defendant promised to the Plaintiff that “The Defendant will jointly and severally liable for the obligation under the above lease agreement against the Plaintiff.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The above lease agreement, which determined the cause of the claim, was terminated at the expiration of the period on April 30, 2014.
(A) Although the Defendant alleged that the above lease agreement had been implicitly renewed, the fact that the duplicate of the complaint of this case containing the purport of seeking the return of deposit on May 9, 2016, was served on the designated parties on the premise of the cancellation of the above lease agreement, is apparent in the record, and thus, the termination under Article 6-2(1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act has become effective on August 10, 2016 after three months have elapsed. Therefore, the Defendant and the designated parties jointly and severally are liable to return the deposit amount to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
The plaintiff also sought damages for delay as to the above deposit, but at the end of the lease, the lessee's obligation to return the object and the lessor's obligation to return the deposit are simultaneously performed. There is no assertion that the plaintiff did not have any obligation to return the real estate in this case or provided performance. Thus, the defendant and the designated person did not have any delay of the above obligation to return the deposit. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the claim for damages for delay is without merit.
3. As long as the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate and the obligation to return the deposit money of the Defendant and the designated person are in the simultaneous performance relationship, the Defendant and the designated person.