보증금반환
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10 million.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit;
1. Basic facts
A. As between October 24, 2016 and C, the Plaintiff entered into each lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) between Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”); ① KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000; and the term of lease from October 24, 2016 to October 23, 2018; ② the entire second floor deposit is KRW 150,000,000,000 and the term of lease is from October 24, 2016 to October 23, 2018; and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired and used each leased portion under the said lease agreement.
B. The instant housing was transferred to the Defendant, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 14, 2017. The original Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant paid KRW 16 million to the Plaintiff on July 4, 2017, and KRW 24 million on August 1, 2017.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) The judgment on the cause of the claim is based on the above basic facts. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remaining lease deposit KRW 120 million (a total of KRW 160 million - the deposit for lease), barring any special circumstance.
(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff also sought a payment for delay from the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint as to the above lease deposit, and the Plaintiff still occupies the leased part. Since the lessee’s obligation to deliver the leased object and the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship (the Defendant does not have a simultaneous performance defense in this case). Thus, unless the lessee does not deliver the leased object, the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit does not lead to delay of performance.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case relating to the lease deposit.