beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,509,680 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 15, 2014 to October 4, 2016.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8, and evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant on July 24, 2009, setting the lease deposit deposit deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000 for monthly rent (hereinafter "the instant store") as KRW 1104,000,000 for the instant store (hereinafter "the instant store"), and the plaintiff operated the instant store "D-type department" at the instant store and decided to deduct the rent from the lease deposit on February 2014 while moving the instant hospital from the instant store to another place. The plaintiff moved the instant hospital to the building located in Daegu-gu, and around August 2014, the lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff on July 14, 2014.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of KRW 65,509,680, which remains after deducting the sum of KRW 34,490,320 from KRW 100,000 to December 14, 2014, which is the expiration date of the lease period, from KRW 100,000,000.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that since the lease contract of this case was terminated by the plaintiff's delinquency in monthly rent, the penalty of 10,000 won should be deducted from the lease deposit, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant store until November 2015, by setting up a public notice notice stating that the lien is being exercised at the instant store. However, it is difficult to recognize the same solely by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 3 in the evidence No. 1-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
C. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should bear the cost of restoring the store to its original state, and that the amount equivalent to KRW 32,307,00 should be deducted. However, each statement in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 exceeds KRW 10 million as the Plaintiff is the cost of restoring the store to its original state.