임대차보증금
1. The defendant shall pay 36,290,000 won to the plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 1, 1998 to November 20, 199.
1. In full view of the facts in this court’s determination as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff is recognized as having filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant on July 20, 2010, with the court below (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Da329723) that “the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 40,000,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from April 1, 1998 to November 20, 199, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Da29723), and the judgment on August 6, 2010, as it becomes final and conclusive, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant on April 21, 2020.
Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of money according to the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Kadan29723.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mutual aid
A. Since a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect only on the part of the text, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment does not affect only the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as the subject matter of a lawsuit and the existence of legal relations premised on such premise. The lease deposit is not allowed to dispute the amount of the lease deposit received between the parties on the ground that the lessee has a balance remaining after deducting all the secured obligations, such as overdue rent, when the lessee returns the leased object to the lessor after the termination of the lease, on the condition that the lessee returns the leased object to the lessor, the lessee’s right to claim the return of the remainder only has arisen, and
Even if there is no overdue rent, which is a premise for exercising the right to claim the return of the lease deposit, the res judicata effect against the non-existence of the secured obligation does not affect.
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da61398 delivered on February 9, 2001).
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the whole argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff is the defendant from March 1, 1998 to March 1, 1999.