임대차보증금반환
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. At the same time, the delivery of each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff is 503,00.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”, and the buildings listed in paragraph (2) of the separate sheet from May 10, 2014 to May 9, 2019, the lease deposit amount of KRW 500,000,000, and the rent of KRW 19,000,000 from July 10, 2014 to May 9, 2016, when the remodeling work for the Plaintiff’s recreation business ends, the Plaintiff shall be paid from July 10, 2014 until May 9, 2016, and the rent of KRW 21,00,000 per month from the following day to May 9, 2019.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At the time of the conclusion of the said lease agreement, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was planning to implement large-scale remodeling works to open the heavy straws in the instant building.
B. On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a full amount of KRW 500,000,000 for the lease deposit of this case to the Defendant, and commenced remodeling construction of the instant building from May 19, 2014 upon delivery of the instant real estate from the Defendant on the same day.
On June 17, 2014 and June 19, 2014, when the said remodeling project was in progress, the Plaintiff was notified by the ManobC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ManobC”) that “as a result of the on-site inspection, the instant building was discovered to have been installed 120 to 220 meters on the road, requesting a safety inspection, and suspending all of the construction works until the safety of the instant building is confirmed.”
C. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the foregoing fact with content certification, and requested the Defendant to repair the instant building so as not to interfere with the use and profit-making.
Accordingly, the defendant, on July 1, 2014, is not suitable for the plaintiff to use the building of this case by forcing the plaintiff to undertake remodeling construction including the large removal of the outer wall of the building of this case without conducting a prior safety inspection.