보증금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff alleged as the parties: ① On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a real estate lease agreement with the Defendant to rent and reside in KRW 302,00,000 from among the 302 above ground buildings of the Gyeonggi-do Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, for two years.
② On December 1, 2016, concerning the instant building and its site, the decision to voluntarily commence the auction was rendered on December 1, 2016 by the Suwon District Court.
The Plaintiff initially asserted as follows: “The Defendant is unable to receive the preferential repayment by concluding a lease contract after 2007, which is the date of the establishment of the senior security object, and there is no fixed date and thus, it is impossible to recover the deposit due to this auction. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive from the Defendant the claim in this case at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case to the day of full payment.”
③ Although the Defendant was obligated to notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the registration for entry into provisional attachment as of May 27, 2013 was completed on the instant building, etc., and that the auction would immediately proceed, the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement by deceiving the Plaintiff as a means of not notifying the said fact. As such, the instant lease agreement was revoked by serving a preparatory document as of October 10, 2017.
④ Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff.
Defendant: (a) concluded a lease agreement on the Plaintiff’s assertion and received KRW 70 million as lease deposit; (b) however, it did not belong to the Plaintiff by confirming that a senior loan was made in the copy of the register of the instant building and concluding the instant lease agreement; and (c) the said decision on voluntary decision on commencement of auction was revoked and the registration for entry into provisional seizure was revoked.
2. The deception by omission of the market-related legal doctrine is the duty of disclosure under law.