임대차보증금
Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant). The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is a counterclaim.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
Basic Facts
A. Since the lease of a building on the land of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) around April 2002, the Plaintiff has repeated the renewal of the lease contract, and has operated the manufacturing and maintenance business of special roads in the said building.
On May 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease contract again with a deposit of KRW 30 million, KRW 3.6 million per month, KRW 3.6 million per month (excluding value added tax), and the period from May 1, 2016 to 24 months (hereinafter “lease”). (b) The Plaintiff knew that the Defendant was scheduled to move to the Defendant around January 15, 2019. On February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff again sent a certificate to request the Defendant to return deposit of KRW 30 million by March 4, 2019.
The Defendant sent to this, on April 30, 2018, a certificate of content that “the Plaintiff intended to purchase a new factory site before the expiration of the period of three months prior to the expiration of the period of April 30, 2018, and asked the Plaintiff to purchase a new factory site, and demanding the return of the deposit was unreasonable, and upon entering the new lessee, the Defendant sent a certificate of content that “the new lessee would recover the deposit, and pay the factory in its original condition.”
(c)
On March 30, 2019, the Plaintiff was a director of the instant building.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim on the main claim, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on April 30, 2018, the last renewed lease term expires, but the Plaintiff was agreed to maintain the lease only until the completion of new construction and relocation of the Plaintiff’s factory.
Recognized.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the lease of this case was terminated upon the termination of the agreement at around March 30, 2019, when the Plaintiff moved in the building of this case.
The Defendant had loaded containers, straws, various equipment, etc. up to June 2019 by the Plaintiff.
One of the arguments is that this duty should be restored.