임대차보증금
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 200,000,000 with the Plaintiff as well as 5% per annum from September 25, 2016 to September 30, 2016.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the network F to the extent that the lease deposit was KRW 200 million, monthly rent of KRW 750,000,00, and the lease period from February 2012 to February 2014 with respect to the first floor of 194.19 square meters of the building in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and H ground I building (hereinafter “instant store”).
B. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 50 million, and the remainder of KRW 150 million on February 28, 2012, and began to operate a beauty room business with the trade name called “J” at the instant store.
C. On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff and the deceased F agreed to renew the instant lease agreement with respect to the instant store; the lease deposit and monthly rent are the same; Provided, That the lease agreement was amended from March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff revealed that there is no intention to renew the instant lease agreement. At the same time, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of the details of the request for the return of the lease deposit to the network F’s domicile, and the content of the certificate reached around January 15, 2016.
E. Meanwhile, on September 20, 2015, the deceased on September 20, 2015, and the Defendants are the inheritors.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including additional numbers), 2 copies of the whole pleadings
A. In a case where a lessor died before the termination of a lease agreement, co-inheritors jointly succeed to the status of a lessor under the lease agreement. The status of a lessor during the existence of a lease agreement, such as the duty to have the lessee maintain the status necessary for allowing the lessee to use and benefit from the leased object, is indivisible in light of its nature, and it is reasonable to deem that this constitutes an indivisible legal relationship with the case where several co-inheritors exist. Therefore, the obligation to return the lease deposit should be viewed as an indivisible obligation in
Supreme Court Decision 198.8