beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단73130

건물인도

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 55,00,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously entered in the separate sheet.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 5, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C and the instant housing as the lease period from August 8, 2010 to August 8, 2012, setting the lease deposit amount to KRW 55 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and paid KRW 50 million to C on the date of the contract, and paid KRW 55 million on August 8, 2010, respectively. Around that time, the Defendant occupied and used the instant housing upon delivery.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant house from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 16, 2010.

C. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming that the instant lease agreement had been terminated at the expiration of the term, and the Defendant, on July 27, 2016, sent to the Plaintiff a written notification stating that “The instant lease agreement was terminated, and thus, the deposit amounting to KRW 55,00,000,000 was exceeded by August 8, 2016.”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on January 10, 2014 following the Defendant’s unlawful acts as indicated in paragraphs (2) and (3). Since the Defendant consented to such termination, the Plaintiff was terminated upon termination of the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff did not specify at any time the termination date of the instant lease agreement. However, in full view of each of the entries in the written complaint and the written amendment of the claim and the written amendment of the claim for the instant lease, the instant lease agreement appears to have been concluded on January 2014 by notifying the Plaintiff of the termination of the lease agreement and expressing the Defendant’s intent to deliver the instant house by August 8, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the lease deposit from the Plaintiff as provided in Articles 55,00,000 and 2,34) and (4).