beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단58260

전세금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s delivery from the Plaintiff of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Category C 101, and at the same time, KRW 37,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2's statements and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is "No. 101 of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dazine No. 101 et al. from the defendant on October 15, 2010."

A. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming the return of the lease deposit due to the expiration of the lease contract on December 10, 2014, with the lease deposit of KRW 37 million, the lease deposit of KRW 37 million, and the lease term of October 15, 2012, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming the return of the lease deposit on the grounds of the expiration of the lease contract term on December 10, 2014, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on December 15, 2014.

If the above lease contract was implicitly renewed on October 15, 2012 as of October 15, 2012, the judgment on the cause of the claim, barring the Defendant’s notification pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act that the lease contract would not be renewed for a period from April 15, 2014 to September 15, 2014, or for a period from October 15, 2014, the lease contract would be implicitly renewed until October 15, 2016.

However, according to Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, if a lease contract is explicitly renewed, the lessee may notify at any time the termination of the lease contract, and the termination becomes effective three months after the lessor is notified of the termination. Thus, if the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the lease with the duplicate of the complaint in this case, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated as of March 15, 2015, which was three months after the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint in this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the lease deposit amounting to KRW 37 million, but the Plaintiff is in possession of KRW 101, which is the object of the lease. Since the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object and the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship, barring special circumstances.