임대차보증금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,850,00 to the Plaintiffs, as well as 5% per annum from May 15, 2018 to August 22, 2019.
1. On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs: (a) entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the four-story housing and accommodation facilities on the ground of the Defendant’s agent; (b) the Plaintiffs paid KRW 30,000,000 out of the deposit to E on the date of the contract.
The terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement are as follows.
1: Article 1: 300,000,000 won (of these, KRW 30,000,000 of the down payment shall be paid at the time of a contract, and the balance shall be paid on February 28, 2018): Article 2 of the rent monthly (excluding value-added tax) 4,80,000: From February 28, 2018 to February 27, 2020: Before the lessee pays the remainder to the lessor, the lessor shall reimburse the remainder of the down payment, and the lessee may rescind the contract after waiver of the down payment.
Article 10: The lessor cancels the right to collateral security at 11 times in the order of register register on the date of the payment of the remainder.
Article 11: The lessor cancels the provisional registration of D on the payment date of the balance.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. On February 28, 2018, the remaining payment date of the Plaintiffs asserted by the Defendant, the Defendant failed to implement Articles 10 and 11 of the terms of the lease agreement, and E, the Defendant’s agent, rescinded the lease agreement pursuant to Article 5.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 60,000,000 won, which is a part of the down payment, to the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 5 of the contract.
B. 1) The cancellation under Article 5 of the lease agreement takes effect when a lessor redeems the lessee the amount of the down payment received by the lessor or provides at least a performance to the lessee and notifies the lessee of the rescission (it is apparent by the terms of the contract and is also supported by the Supreme Court Decision 91Da33612 Decided July 28, 192). However, even according to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, this case does not fall under the above cases, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is with merit.