beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2017.12.07 2017가합741

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 300,000,000 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from January 1, 2017 to June 27, 2017.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff shall lease each building listed in the separate sheet from the defendant A on December 28, 2015, with the lease deposit of KRW 300,000,000, the rent of KRW 5,500,000 (Additional sheet), and the period from December 28, 2015 to December 31, 2016, and the defendant Eul may recognize the fact that the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the lease deposit by the defendant A at the time of the above contract, and the fact that the plaintiff paid the above lease deposit of KRW 300,00,000 to the defendant A does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, the above lease contract was terminated on December 31, 2016.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 300,000,000 for the refund of the said lease deposit, and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from January 1, 2017 to June 27, 2017, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendants' assertion as to the defendants' assertion is acknowledged as the above lease deposit return obligation itself, but the party head is not able to repay the above lease deposit due to the sudden bankruptcy. However, such circumstance alone does not lead to the defendants' exemption from the above lease deposit return obligation against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.