Park-D, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

가. 원고는 2010. 3. 15. 피고로부터 부산 부산진구 ☆동 ○○○ 소재 ★오피스텔 ○ ○○호를 임대차보증금 500만 원, 월 차임 45만 원, 기간 1년으로 정하여 임차하였고, 당일 위 보증금과 월 차임을 지급하고, 그때부터 위 오피스텔에서 거주하기 시작했다.

B. While the Plaintiff was residing in the said officetel on April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that there was a case of murdering by a female on or around February 2010. At the time of the Plaintiff’s lease of the said officetel, the Defendant was aware of the said fact, but did not notify the Plaintiff thereof.

D. On April 28, 2010, the Plaintiff knew the above fact and notified the termination of the contract, and delivered the instant officetel to the Defendant.

E. The plaintiff paid the monthly rent in advance. The management expenses in March and April are KRW 190,320, and the defendant paid only KRW 4,143,140 to the plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the defendant, and purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. In cases where it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the other party to a transaction would not have been notified of certain circumstances in real estate transaction as to whether to recognize the right to terminate the contract under the good faith principle, it is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the good faith principle. The subject of such duty of disclosure can be acknowledged not only by the direct law, but also by the general principles of contract, customs, or sound reasoning (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da48515, Oct. 12, 2006).

Since a breach of duty of disclosure constitutes deception by omission, the other party may cancel the contract on the ground of deception and claim the return of the sale price and only claim damages arising therefrom if he/she does not want to cancel the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da48515, Oct. 12, 2006). In addition, in cases where the maintenance and enforcement of the terms of the original contract would bring about unfair consequences contrary to the good faith and fairness, the parties may change or discard the legal act in a manner consistent with the good faith and fairness. However, in the case of a continuous contract such as a lease, if the parties want to avoid the binding force of the contract without wanting to cancel the contract, it is reasonable to allow the parties to cancel the contract, and to authorize the termination of the contract under the good faith principle. In this case, the fact that the instant officetel was murdered in the instant officetel is especially young women, and as long as the Defendant did not notify it, the Plaintiff may cancel the contract or notify the termination of the contract by reason of the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of disclosure.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5 million won a deposit and 2.40 million won a monthly rent from April 29, 2010 to May 14, 2010 (i.e., 450,000 won X 16/30 days) less 3,190,320 management expenses for April 3, 200 to 4,143,140 won that the defendant paid to the plaintiff, as well as the remaining 906,540 won a sum of 5,00,000 won a deposit and 2,40,000 won a monthly rent from April 29, 2010 to May 14, 2010, after the plaintiff delivered the instant officetel to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, 5,000 won a year from the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, to pay damages for delay by 20% a year.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.