beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 140,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 15, 2018 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on April 22, 2016, stipulating that the lease deposit amount of KRW 140 million for the lease deposit of KRW 202,00,000,000,000 from May 12, 2016 to May 11, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the lease agreement of this case"). Under the lease agreement of this case, the plaintiff paid the defendant the lease deposit amount of KRW 140,000,000 to the defendant and resided in the lease of this case from the defendant on May 12, 2016, the plaintiff can be recognized as having been delivered the lease deposit amount of KRW 140,000,000 to the defendant on May 11, 2018.
According to such recognition, the instant lease contract was terminated on May 11, 2018 upon the expiration of its validity.
As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 140 million and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 15, 2018 to the date of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks.
B. On May 31, 2018, the Defendant deposited KRW 140 million on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit upon the termination of the instant lease agreement was subject to the provisional attachment order on the instant loan (U.S. District Court 2018Kadan202148), and on September 18, 2018, the Defendant deposited KRW 140 million on the ground that the deposit was made for the cancellation of the execution of the said provisional attachment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for this case was achieved, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this case was without merit.”
According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the deposit for provisional seizure is true, as the defendant alleged above.