beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 47,400,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 20, 2012 to May 15, 2013; and (b).
Reasons
1. On March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 102 Dong 202 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) a deposit of 50 million won and the term of lease from April 20, 2010 to April 19, 2012. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant a deposit of 50 million won at that time, and was living in the instant building after living in the instant building. Upon the termination of the said term of lease, the Plaintiff filed an application for the order of lease registration with respect to the instant building and completed the lease registration upon the expiration of the said term of lease. Accordingly, the lease agreement was terminated as of April 19, 2012.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff and pay damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.
A. As to this, the Defendant asserts that ① the Defendant’s obligation to return the deposit, the Plaintiff’s obligation to specify the Plaintiff’s building, and the obligation to cancel the lease registration are simultaneously performed, and ② the overdue rent of KRW 6,890,000 from February 20, 2012 to July 26, 2012 and the management fee of KRW 6,890,00 shall be deducted from the Plaintiff’s deposit.
B. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading evidence Nos. 2 and 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff out of the building of this case on April 19, 2012 and notified the Defendant thereof, and also notified the Defendant of the password of the building of this case. Since the lease registration under Article 3-3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act was made under the condition that the lessor did not return the deposit even though the lease contract had already been terminated, the obligation to return the lease deposit of the lessor first to perform the obligation to cancel the lease registration of the lessee (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da4529, Jun. 9, 2005) is without merit.
C. Meanwhile, Party A 4, and Party A.