보증금반환
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit;
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. As between March 19, 2014 and C, the Plaintiff: (a) drafted a lease agreement under which the Plaintiff wishes to lease KRW 302 (hereinafter “instant subparagraph 302”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant building”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 120,000,000; (b) from March 19, 2014 to March 18, 2016; and (c) completed a move-in report on the same day and received a fixed date.
B. On September 30, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 28, 2014 with respect to the instant building on the ground of sale on September 30, 2014.
C. On the other hand, around February 11, 2015, the date of the actual contract was drafted retrospectively on March 19, 2014, the date of the Plaintiff’s transfer to the contract at the time of registration or at the time of the contract.
Between the Defendant’s agent D and 120,000,000 won for lease on a deposit basis, and the purpose and scope of the right to lease on a deposit basis (the instant case No. 302), the duration from March 19, 2014 to March 18, 2016, written contract establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis (the instant right to lease on a deposit basis) was completed on February 11, 2015.
After the expiration of the lease term of this case, the Plaintiff was returned KRW 40 million from D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 5, and 6 evidence, witness D and E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, the settlor of chonsegwon, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the person having chonsegwon, the amount of KRW 120 million, subtracting the amount of KRW 40 million returned from D from the amount of KRW 120 million. 2) The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff’s deposit payment and the delivery of real estate, which is the core element of the Defendant’s pre-claimed lease contract, and thus, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the security deposit to the Plaintiff.
B. As to whether the Defendant is liable to return the deposit money to the Plaintiff, according to the foregoing recognition, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.