추심금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. As to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that B was liable for the payment of the deposit amount as the collection deposit to the Plaintiff, since B leased the period of KRW 106,00,001 from July 1, 2014 to July 31, 2016, with respect to the claim for the return of the lease deposit, the Plaintiff obtained the seizure and collection order of the claim for the said claim for the refund of the lease deposit (Yan District Court 2014, Sejong District Court 2014, Sejong District Court 2080).
As to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, the term of lease between D and the Defendant, even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, is from July 1, 2014 to July 31, 2016, and thus, it is apparent that the period of repayment between D and the Defendant has not yet arrived at the time of the closure of pleadings, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the said lease contract was terminated prior to the expiration of the said period.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking the payment of the lease deposit as the collection deposit is the lawsuit of future performance.
On the other hand, a lawsuit for future performance is allowed only when it is acknowledged that the debtor needs to claim in advance, such as where the debtor's non-performance is almost certain even after the existence of the obligation or the due date arrives. It is evident that the defendant does not dispute the existence of the obligation to return the lease deposit. However, since the defendant only claims the deduction of expenses incurred in relation to the above lease agreement, it is difficult to expect the defendant to perform the obligation within the due date, there is no evidence to
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as the plaintiff is not deemed to need to claim the payment of the above lease deposit to the defendant.
2. Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is different from this conclusion.