임대차보증금반환 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to KRW 45,816,00 against the Plaintiff and KRW 20,000,00 among them, the judgment of the court of first instance on October 15, 2013 against the Defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant by setting a deposit amount of KRW 20 million with respect to the portion of KRW 115.2m2m2 in the warehouse on the 1st floor in E-si, E-si, Leecheon-si (hereinafter “instant warehouse”), KRW 1650,000 per month (excluding value-added tax, the last day of each month), and the period from February 15, 2013 to February 14, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million on the date of the contract, the remainder of KRW 10,000 on the date of February 15, 2013, respectively.
B. Meanwhile, the warehouse of this case was permitted to be an agricultural warehouse in the agricultural promotion zone, and the warehouse of this case was in the condition that it cannot be used for purposes other than agriculture from the time of the conclusion of the instant lease contract, and the general building ledger of the warehouse of this case stated “area: Agricultural promotion zone, main purpose: warehouse facilities.”
C. On February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a contract between E and E for the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration construction of the instant warehouse (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the construction cost of KRW 54,00,000, and the construction period from February 13, 2013 to March 20, 2013, to use the instant warehouse as sales facilities.
On March 4, 2013, the Plaintiff heard that the above warehouse from a public official of the competent authority is an agricultural warehouse, and thus it cannot be used for the purpose of the Plaintiff, and removed the facilities already installed in the warehouse of this case.
E. On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concealed that the instant warehouse is an agricultural warehouse, acquired lease deposit money, and filed a complaint against C for fraud and fraudulent aiding and abetting, respectively, but the Sungnam Branch Office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office rendered dispositions against C and the Defendant, respectively, without suspicion (Evidence of Evidence).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, and Eul 2.