beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 90 million with the Plaintiff and 12% per annum from October 17, 2019 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 130 million with respect to the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Underground Underground Ground E (hereinafter “instant real estate”), from March 19, 2016 to March 18, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 130 million with the lease deposit and received the instant real estate from the Defendants.
On October 2, 2019, the Plaintiff handed over and returned the instant real estate to the Defendants.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1-4 Evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts acknowledged as above, barring any special circumstance, the lease of this case has expired after the expiration of the lease term. Thus, the Defendants, a joint lessee, jointly, are liable to jointly return KRW 90,000,000, which remains after subtracting the amount of KRW 40,000,000 from the amount of the deposit received by the Plaintiff out of the deposit for lease, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 17, 2019 to the date of final delivery of the application for change of the claim and the cause of the claim after the date of return of the real estate in this case, as requested by the Plaintiff.
The Defendants asserted that indoor equipment was damaged due to the Plaintiff’s mistake, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they were unable to lease the instant real estate to a third party due to the Plaintiff’s non-Cooperation, and thus, they sought a grace period and a reduction or exemption of damages for delay. However, such reasons cannot be a legitimate defense against the Plaintiff’s claim under law.
The Defendants’ assertion cannot be deemed to be justifiable in its entirety.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is legitimate and accepted in entirety.