beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 100,611,620 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 100 million and the lease period from May 19, 2017 to May 18, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid a deposit of KRW 100 million to the Defendant.
B. The Defendant did not refund the deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff even though the instant lease contract term expired.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid KRW 611,620 as the long-term repair load of the apartment of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case is terminated at the expiration of the period (it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff notified the termination of the lease contract of this case by serving the written complaint of this case, since it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, who was the plaintiff who was the plaintiff who was the plaintiff who was the plaintiff's implied renewal without it, notified the termination of the lease of this case by serving the written complaint of this case, the lease contract of this case is lawfully terminated at January 30, 2020, which is the date of service of the written complaint of this case, and at the same time three months from October 30, 2019, which is the date of service of the written complaint of this case, the defendant received the real estate of this case from the plaintiff and at the same time the amount of KRW 10,611,620 [the long-term repair appropriations are the principle that the owner bears the burden of paying the long-term repair appropriations (Article 30 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act). Meanwhile, the plaintiff is also obligated to pay losses for delay.
3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.