beta
Text
1. At the same time, the Defendant shall receive real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1 through 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings, with respect to the claim for the return of the lease deposit, the Plaintiff leased on March 12, 2013 the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant during the lease period from May 28, 2013 to May 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); the lease deposit was paid KRW 10 million on the date of the contract; and the remainder of KRW 210 million on May 28, 2013; and it is apparent that the instant lease contract has expired due to the expiration of the lease period.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 220 million to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.
B. As to the claim for damages for delay, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the above real estate to the day of full payment. This seems to have applied the statutory interest rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the main text of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the main text of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25
However, in cases where both parties’ obligations are simultaneously performed in bilateral contract, even if one party’s obligation becomes due, the other party’s obligation is not attributable until the other party’s obligation is performed. However, in this case, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff performed, provided, or performed, the obligation to deliver the instant real estate, which is simultaneously performed with the obligation to return the leased deposit, to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be held liable for delay of performance as to the obligation to return the leased deposit.
Therefore, the plaintiff.