beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,824,520 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 17, 2017 to November 23, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 40 million, and the lease period of KRW 4 million until August 18, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and leased the instant building from the Defendant.
B. Around August 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement to KRW 50 million, monthly rent to KRW 6 million, and simultaneously extended the lease period to the end of March 2017.
C. On March 25, 2017, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant, but the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff failed to restore the lease deposit and did not refund KRW 50 million.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above recognition that the obligation to pay the lease deposit has arisen, the lease contract of this case terminated at the expiration of the lease term, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to refund the deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million.
B. The Defendant’s defense 1) The instant building was leased from the Plaintiff to the private teaching institute facilities, and operated a fish driving institute.
B) On July 25, 2006, E comprehensively takes over the above fish ladders from D, and the Plaintiff succeeds to the duty to restore D, the former lessee, by comprehensively taking over the rights and obligations after succeeding to E from May 14, 2012, and by comprehensively taking over the rights and obligations, the Plaintiff is obligated to restore to its original state even the section for exclusive use of the instant building and the portion for exclusive use of D’s changed shares. C) Since the Plaintiff removed the air-conditioning installed in the ceiling of the instant building, and there was a phenomenon in the natural environment after the Plaintiff removed the air-conditioning installed in the ceiling of the instant building, this is due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff, which is the cost of restitution 6,624.