beta
Text
1. The Defendants: (a) from August 31, 2017 to September 11, 2017, each of the Plaintiff KRW 40 million; and (b) from August 31, 2017 to Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D on the condition that the lease deposit was KRW 40 million, the lease term was August 30, 2017, and the rent was KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
As a deposit for lease under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid D the down payment of KRW 2 million on the same day, and KRW 40 million on the 24th of the same month, in total, KRW 38 million.
B. After February 23, 2016, the Defendants acquired ownership of each of the instant housing units 1/2 shares.
C. On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff sent each content certification to the Defendants that “the Plaintiff, on April 10, 2017, informed Defendant C of the absence of intent to renew the contract by telephone, notified it once more on July 14, 2017, and notified the Defendant of the absence of intent to renew the contract once again through this content certification.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12, Gap's statements (if any, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. As to the delivery of the instant housing, the following facts and circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff, from July 14, 2017, expressed that the Defendants had no intent to renew the instant lease contract from the point of time to July 14, 2017, ② on August 2017, when the term of the instant lease was imminent, the Defendants were asked the Plaintiff with the present password number to install the Internet in the instant housing, and the Plaintiff appears to have installed an Internet network on the instant housing between the Defendants by text messages around the 22th of the same month, and the Plaintiff appears to have not been notified of the password to the Defendants by text messages, and ③ the Plaintiff was the director of the instant housing prior to the expiration of the term of the instant lease.