beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 210,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 25, 2015 to May 1, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
On July 28, 2012, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease”) the Songpa-gu Seoul apartment 2, 1504 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 210,000,000,000 from September 10, 2012 to September 9, 2014, and paid KRW 210,00,000 to the Defendant on September 5, 2012.
On June 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement, and removed the instant apartment on January 16, 2015. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the key of the instant apartment with the Defendant as the depositee.
[Ground of recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, claiming the purport of the entire pleadings, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 210,000,000 and the delay damages from January 17, 2015.
Judgment
Since the lease contract of this case terminated upon the expiration of the lease term on September 9, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 210,000,000 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 25, 2015 to May 1, 2015, which is the date following the date when the Plaintiff returned the apartment of this case to the Defendant.
(A) The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay from January 17, 2015. However, the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the instant apartment and the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit are jointly performed. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff fulfilled the obligation to return the instant apartment on April 24, 2015, which deposited the key of the instant apartment. Therefore, the Defendant bears the obligation to return the instant apartment from April 25, 2015. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted within the scope of the foregoing recognition, and the remainder of the claim is groundless.