전세보증금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. On April 1, 201, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from the Defendant with the term of KRW 33,00,000, the term of lease from April 1, 201 to March 31, 201 (hereinafter “the lease of this case”). The fact that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a deposit for the lease of this case at that time, and the delivery of the instant apartment is no dispute between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s lease of this case terminated at the expiration of the term, and on December 1, 2013, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 33,000,000 and the delay damages after December 2, 2013.
B. Although the lease of this case is terminated, the Plaintiff did not yet deliver the apartment of this case to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant should return only the principal of the lease deposit as well as the delivery of the apartment of this case.
3. Determination
A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16, the Plaintiff is deemed to have delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant even though the Plaintiff attempted to contact the Defendant continuously after the expiration of the lease term, but did not contact with the Defendant; and the Plaintiff was found to have left the instant apartment on December 1, 2013 and had a director to another place. However, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant solely on the said facts.
B. However, considering the facts as mentioned in the above paragraph (a) above and the overall purport of the arguments, or the following facts or circumstances that are recognized or known, the defendant's simultaneous performance defense cannot be permitted contrary to the concept of fairness and the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da34697, Nov. 12, 199). The defendant's duty to return the lease deposit on December 1, 2013, which the plaintiff left the apartment of this case.
① The lease of this case on the part of the Plaintiff.