beta
Text
1. At the same time, the defendant receives KRW 320,000,000 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, written in the attached list to the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2, the Plaintiffs are the owners of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment 705 Dong 1403 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant, on December 12, 2012, acknowledged the fact that the instant apartment was leased from the Plaintiffs for a period of KRW 320,000,000 from February 20, 2013 to February 19, 2015.
2. The parties' assertion
A. On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff A expressed his/her intent not to renew the lease agreement by telephone to the Defendant. Since the lease period of the instant apartment expires on February 19, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiffs.
B. On December 11, 2014, Defendant A merely stated that the instant apartment is expected to be sold by telephone to the Defendant and expressed his intent not to renew the instant apartment contract. Therefore, the instant apartment lease was implicitly renewed, and the Defendant did not have any obligation to comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim for delivery. Even if the instant apartment lease was not implicitly renewed, there is only a duty to deliver the leased deposit at the same time, even if it was not implicitly renewed.
3. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff expressed only his/her intent to sell the instant apartment at the time the Plaintiff made a telephone to the Defendant on December 11, 2014, or expressed his/her intent not to renew the lease agreement.
Therefore, according to the records of Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, 3, and 7-1 and 2, the following facts revealed that the plaintiff Gap requested the sale of the apartment of this case to the neighboring real estate intermediary around December 13, 2014 after the telephone communications with the defendant, and that the buyer is immediately able to move into the apartment of this case. Accordingly, the apartment of this case is based on the computerized data registered by the real estate intermediary.