beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 50,000,000 and its interest to the plaintiff shall be 5% per annum from October 1, 2018 to November 25, 2020.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff leased Dho Lake (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) from the Defendant to May 31, 2018, among the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu’s ground buildings owned by the Defendant, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,00,000 and the lease term from May 31, 2016 to May 31, 2018.
Upon the expiration of the period of validity on May 31, 2018, the Plaintiff restored the boundary wall between the instant store and the E heading adjacent to the said store to a place other than its original location, and delivered the instant store to the Defendant on June 13, 2018.
The Plaintiff received only KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant’s deposit.
[Grounds for recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the facts acknowledged prior to the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to return 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff.
Since the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay from June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to stipulate the lessee's duty to restore to the original state in the lease contract and can deduct the lessee's expenses from the lease deposit.
In a case where a lessor intends to lease a facility installed by a lessee to another person without a lessor’s intention to restore it to its original state, the cost of restoration to its original state shall not be deducted from the lease deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da58481, Jan. 11, 2002; 2002Da52657, Dec. 10, 2002). Since the fact that the Plaintiff restored the boundary wall of the store of this case to a place other than its original state, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is obligated to restore it to the Defendant. Since the Plaintiff’s duty to restore and the Defendant’s duty to return the lease deposit of this case are related to simultaneous performance, the Defendant’s duty to return the lease deposit of this case is delayed.