계약금반환 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Fact-finding [Grounds for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings [Proof evidence] Gap evidence No. 9, the defendant entered into a lease agreement as shown in attached Table 1 with the E (three for Maart directly operated by E), the representative of D Co., Ltd. for the purpose of the business of discount (distribution) on October 30, 2014, as shown in attached Table 1, on October 28, 2014.
Although the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 26, 2014 regarding the instant land, etc., E did not pay KRW 80 million out of the lease deposit to the Defendant.
E requested a design for the construction of a building for marina use, accordingly, the construction permit was issued on April 27, 2015, and the construction work of a new building was commenced on May 30, 2015.
On August 7, 2015, when the construction of the building was conducted, the Plaintiff, an employee of D Co., Ltd., entered into a lease agreement as shown in attached Table 2 with the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million after deducting KRW 20 million paid by E from the lease deposit of KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on August 10, 2015, and paid the remainder lease deposit of KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant.
The new building on the instant land was approved for use on October 20, 2015, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on October 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certification of the content that the Plaintiff requested the termination of the contract and the return of down payment following the Defendant’s nonperformance of the lease contract on the same day.
2. 주장 및 판단 주장요지 : ▷원고는 피고의 다음과 같은 채무불이행을 이유로 2015. 10. 21. 임대차계약을 해제하는 의사표시를 하였고, 그 무렵 위 의사표시는 피고에게 도달하여 이 사건 임대차계약은 피고의 귀책사유로 인하여 적법하게 해제되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게...