beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.10.15 2015가단111461

보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendants: (a) each of the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and the Defendant Spos Korea Co., Ltd. on June 13, 2015.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Plaintiff and Defendant Spos Korea, and the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the pleading in each of the statements (including the provisional number) Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8, and 9.

On February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with Defendant B and C by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million and the lease term of two years with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and paid the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and paid the lease deposit on February 20, 201, and completed the move-in report on February 22, 201 and resided after receiving the fixed date.

B. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and the Plaintiff expressed to Defendant B the intent to terminate the lease agreement on August 2014, but the said Defendant sold the instant real estate to Defendant Spos Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Spos Korea”) on December 11, 2014.

C. On February 20, 2015, Defendant Spos Korea did not return the security deposit to the Plaintiff even though it was confirmed that the instant lease agreement would be terminated upon the Plaintiff’s removal from the office.

The Plaintiff removed from the instant real estate.

2. According to the fact of the above recognition, Defendant B and C are parties to the instant lease agreement, and Defendant Spos Korea is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 13, 2015 to July 18, 2015 for Defendant Spos Korea, each of whom succeeds to the status of the lessor of the instant lease, and as the Plaintiff seeks, with respect to each of the following day after the delivery of the instant complaint, as claimed by the Plaintiff.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified.