임대차보증금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and Eul concluded a lease agreement with the defendant on March 16, 201, setting the deposit deposit amount of KRW 35 million, the lease period of KRW 206 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") from March 21, 201 to March 20, 2013 (hereinafter "the lease of this case"). The plaintiff and Eul paid the defendant the down payment of KRW 1 million among the deposit money of March 16, 201, the balance of KRW 34 million from the same month, and the defendant sold the proceeds of this case to the defendant under the sales contract of this case (hereinafter "the purchase contract of this case") by setting the sales contract of this case as KRW 7 million from March 25, 2013.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff and D, a joint lessee, unless there are special circumstances, in view of the fact that the Defendant transferred the status of lessor upon the instant sales contract, but the Plaintiff appears to have terminated the instant lease contract by serving a copy of the instant complaint as the Plaintiff did not want to do so.
(A) The plaintiff asserted that D only lent the name in order to secure the claim for the return of the lease deposit, and that the plaintiff is a sole tenant, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above only on the basis of the entries of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 and the fact-finding results on the head of Franchis in this Court and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise).
A. The Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that D’s claim cannot be complied with as it is a sole lessee of the instant lease agreement due to the agreement between the Plaintiff, D, and the Defendant as to the fact that the lessee of the instant lease agreement was D at the time of the instant lease agreement, but Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 through 11 respectively.