beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019가합113216

임대차보증금반환 청구

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time 849,850,000 won.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, the former owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the terms that the instant real estate was leased at KRW 950 million, KRW 50 million per month, KRW 500,000 per month, and KRW 2 years from June 30, 2017 to June 29, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 950,000,000 to C the said lease deposit.

B. On August 7, 2017, the Defendant purchased the pertinent real estate on condition that he succeeds to the lease deposit of the instant real estate from C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 13, 2017.

C. On April 28, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the text message that he will be a director on June 30, 2019, following the expiration date of the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to extend the repayment period of the lease deposit by the end of July or the end of August, and the Plaintiff extended the repayment period on July 30, 2019.

On July 31, 2019, the Defendant paid KRW 100,150,000 to the Plaintiff out of the lease deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated, the defendant who succeeded to the status of the lessor from C is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit (=9,850,000,000 won - 100,150,000 won) at the same time as the delivery of the real estate of this case from the plaintiff.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.