beta
Text
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant-Appointed and the appointed party, the appointed party, and the appointed party) filed an objection to KRW 130,000 and this.
Reasons
[Judgment of the court below]
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the evidence No. 1, the following facts: (a) the Plaintiffs (Appointed Party and Appointed Party) entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on March 21, 2015 stipulating that the lease deposit shall be KRW 130,000,000,000 from March 30, 2015 to March 29, 2017; and (b) the Defendant paid KRW 130,000,000 on the date of the contract, KRW 13,000,000 on March 30, 2015; and (c) the Plaintiffs delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant on March 29, 2017; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiffs delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant on March 29, 2017.
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the above lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant was terminated on March 29, 2017 due to the expiration of the term. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs damages for delay calculated at the rate of 130 million won of the above lease deposit and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 30, 2017 to June 23, 2017 as the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
【Counterclaim】
1. The cause of the claim shall be as stated in the annexed sheet and the changed cause of the claim;
2. On the other hand, with the defendant's consent, the part of the monthly rent which the plaintiffs acquired by sub-leaseing the apartment of this case to the other party is not reasonable to regard it as unjust enrichment against the defendant. Thus, this part of the claim is without merit.
Next, in order to preserve the right to claim the return of the lease deposit of this case, there is no ground to view that the provisional seizure of real estate against the apartment of this case was unlawful and constitutes a tort against the defendant. Thus, the part of the right to claim the compensation of KRW 20 million, such as litigation costs and mental damage related to the provisional seizure, is without merit.
Next, the plaintiffs are in this case.