beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.11.12 2020가단226777

기타(금전)

Text

1. The defendant's KRW 35,000,000 and about this, 5% per annum from March 24, 2020 to November 12, 2020 to the plaintiff, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of KRW 28 billion (payment on the date of the contract deposit, the remainder KRW 187 million, and the payment on March 3, 2020), which is owned by the Defendant, to lease the lease deposit at KRW 28 billion (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 21 million.

B. Paragraph (3) of the Special Agreement on the Lease of this case states, “The lessee agrees to and cooperate in obtaining a loan of the loan of the lease on a deposit basis,” and Article 7 of the Special Agreement on the Lease of this case states, “If the lessee or lessee fails to fulfill the terms of the contract, the other party may notify in writing the person who has failed to perform the contract and cancel the contract. In such cases, the party to the contract may claim damages arising from the cancellation of the contract respectively to the other party, and the contract shall be deemed as the basis for

C. Around February 2020, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to consent to the loan in order to obtain the remainder of the lease deposit of this case, but the Defendant rejected it.

On February 24, 2020, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document evidencing that “The Defendant refused to cooperate with the lending of the lease on a deposit basis, so the contract was cancelled pursuant to Article 7 of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff paid a double of the down payment as damages.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant did not perform his duty to cooperate in obtaining a loan from a financial institution pursuant to Paragraph (3) of the terms of the lease agreement of this case, even though the plaintiff, who is a lessee, has been obligated to cooperate in obtaining a loan from a financial institution.