임대차보증금
1. The defendant is simultaneously with the delivery of a single-story house of 100.98 square meters from among the buildings listed in the attached list from the plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 24, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 140,00,000,000, and the lease term from January 25, 2013 to January 25, 2015, on which the Plaintiff leased the first floor detached house of KRW 100,98 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) among the buildings indicated in the attached list from the Defendant.
After concluding the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 140,000,000 to the Defendant.
B. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that seeks the return of the lease deposit without wanting to renew the instant lease contract, and the said certificate reaches the Defendant around that time.
C. The plaintiff does not deliver the building of this case to the defendant and occupies it until now.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on January 25, 2015.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff 140,000,000 won, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. The Plaintiff also claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. However, as seen thereafter, since the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object and the lessor’s obligation to refund the leased deposit are concurrently performed, if the lessee claims for damages for delay of the leased object, it shall be asserted and proved that the lessor transferred or delivered the leased object to the lessor. The Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is without merit, since there is no assertion or proof by the Plaintiff.
3. The defendant's simultaneous performance defense.