beta
Text
1. The defendant would pay 40,000,000 won to the plaintiff at the same time with the delivery of 3rd floor C from the plaintiff Kimhae-si.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff leased 40,000,000 deposit money, 50,000 won monthly rent, and 40,000 won from February 27, 2015 to February 6, 2017, and paid 40,000,000 won to E, and around that time, the Plaintiff received the instant house, and filed a move-in report to the F. of Kimhae-si.
B. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant housing on the ground of sale on the first day of the same month.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the term of lease from February 7, 2017 to February 6, 2019.
The plaintiff sent a notice of termination of the lease to the defendant at the expiration of the extended lease term.
[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, as the lease relationship with the instant house terminates with the expiration of the term of validity, the transferee of the instant house and the Defendant who succeeded to the status of the previous lessor is obligated to refund KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.
The plaintiff also sought a payment for delay from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order of this case, but the defendant's obligation to return the leased deposit and the plaintiff's obligation to return the leased object of this case are concurrently performed. Thus, if both obligations are jointly performed in a bilateral contract, even if one party's obligation becomes due, the other party's obligation does not occur until the other party's obligation is performed (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da40851, 40868, August 22, 1997). Thus, unless there is any evidence supporting that the plaintiff withdrawn and delivered the real estate of this case to the defendant, the defendant is not liable for delay. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case within the scope of the above recognition.