beta
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2014.01.24 2013가단4466

계약금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff made a verbal agreement to rent (hereinafter “the instant lease”) light steel-frame I, Ndong, and Ldong (hereinafter “instant factory”) located in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, which was used as a factory by the Defendant as a factory, and remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant on January 31, 2013.

B. On February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease agreement with the following terms.

1) Lease deposit: 10 million won (contract deposit amount of KRW 30 million, balance of KRW 70 million, and KRW 20 million): The lease period of KRW 9 million (the agreement to pay KRW 79 million in total at the time of advance payment and the balance payment): The contract shall be renewed after 12 months from the date of delivery of real estate; and the contract shall be renewed after 1 year from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014; (c) the Plaintiff visited the instant factory on March 1, 2013, but at the time the Defendant continued to work for the instant factory; and (d) the employees at the time were not aware of the instant lease agreement.

) Through B, on March 1, 2013 and March 2, 2013, the Plaintiff visited the instant factory with a balance and demanded the delivery of the factory, but the Defendant did not comply therewith, and thus, the Defendant expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant lease agreement on the ground of nonperformance of obligation. The aforementioned content certification reached the Defendant around that time. [The fact that there is no dispute over recognition, each entry of No. 1 and No. 4, evidence No. 3-1 through No. 5, each video of the Defendant’s representative, the result of the Defendant’s personal examination, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment on the grounds of the claim

A. The allegation that the instant lease agreement was legally rescinded by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of rescission for the following reasons, and accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the down payment that the Defendant received pursuant to the instant lease agreement, KRW 30 million.

1. The case.