beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.07.03 2017가단5290

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 80 million from the plaintiff, and at the same time deliver the building listed in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

2.

Reasons

1. On August 11, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to lease the instant apartment with the term fixed from August 29, 2009 to August 29, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million and is occupying and using the instant apartment, and there is no dispute between the parties that the period of the instant lease contract expires as of the date of closing argument.

Thus, since the lease contract of this case is terminated as the expiration of the term, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff as the restoration following the termination of the lease contract of this case.

In response, the defendant cannot deliver the apartment of this case before the return of the lease deposit from the plaintiff.

In the event that a lease contract is terminated, the obligation to return the lease deposit and the obligation to deliver the leased object are in the simultaneous performance relationship, so the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff simultaneously with receiving KRW 80 million from the plaintiff.

The defendant's defense is justified.

Furthermore, around August 10, 2011, the Defendant: (a) requested the Plaintiff to deliver the instant apartment; and (b) concluded a lease contract to move into another apartment; (c) however, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff was unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the said damages, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit, thereby incurring losses in the sum of packing directors’ expenses, down payment, and cleaning expenses, which amount to KRW 10,100,01.

Even if the obligation to compensate the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, there is no relationship between the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for damages and the lessee’s obligation to return the apartment of this case due to the termination of the lease agreement.