beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall draw up the annexed drawing among the first floor of the building entered in the annexed list from the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
Reasons
1. Facts constituting the basis for no dispute between the parties;
A. On August 2010, the Plaintiff leased the instant building part from the Defendant to the Defendant during the period from September 13, 2010 to September 12, 2012 with a monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million, and from September 13, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant around that time, and thereafter, began to occupy the instant building part.
B. After the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s renewal of the above lease agreement between the Defendant on September 2012, 201, the amount of the lease deposit increased to KRW 40 million in early October 2013, and the amount of the lease deposit increased to KRW 10 million, and the Defendant renewed the lease deposit with KRW 10 million in the status of additional payment. On September 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a new lease agreement with KRW 1650,000 in monthly rent (excluding value-added tax) as to the instant building as to KRW 40,000,000,000 in the lease deposit, and as of September 12, 2015.
C. Thereafter, on May 2015, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff in writing that he/she had no intention to renew the above lease agreement.
2. Determination on both arguments
A. (1) According to the facts established on the ground that the obligation to return deposit 40 million won for the principal claim was created, the lease contract relationship with respect to the instant part of the building ought to be deemed as having been lawfully terminated upon the expiration of the lease term on September 12, 2015. As such, according to the Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense, the Defendant is obliged to return the instant part of the building from the Plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the instant part of the building from the Plaintiff, and to return the deposit to the Plaintiff.
(2) The grounds for not accepting the claim for damages amounting to KRW 85.7 million (A) are the grounds for this part of the claim, and the Plaintiff entered into a so-called “contract on the transfer of premium” on the part of the instant building with a patrolman C on June 2015, and requested the Defendant to enter into a new lease agreement on the part of the instant building with the Defendant on August 2015.