beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단13446

보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,00,000 and the interest rate thereon from September 5, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all the arguments as to the cause of the claim, defendant A is jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff 27 million won per annum from September 4, 2015 to the date of full payment, in relation to the return of deposit for termination of the contract to the plaintiff on August 13, 2015 under the joint and several guarantee of defendant B, and if the payment is not made until September 4, 2015, he shall pay the plaintiff 27 million won per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff 27 million won and damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from September 5, 2015 to the date of full payment.

(1) The Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants’ assertion is without merit, on May 12, 2015, that the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from September 4, 2015, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the damages for delay from the date of the due date, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants did not have a duty to return the deposit, since they entered into a fee contract with the Plaintiff on May 12, 2015 and received KRW 30,000 from the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not incur damages in violation of the said contract. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff breached the contract with the Defendants, and the Defendants written a written statement of payment stating that the Defendants would return the deposit amount of KRW 27,00,000 on August 13, 2015 after the conclusion of the said contract with the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.