beta
Text
1. The defendant is simultaneously with the delivery of the plaintiff Nos. 202 of the second floor, No. 875, Dong Sung-si, Gyeonggi-do.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Basic facts 1) On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D to lease (hereinafter “instant contract”) the lease deposit No. 245,000,000 of the Gyeonggi-do Seosung apartment No. 202 of the second floor No. 875 and the term of lease from October 28, 2015 to October 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The said real estate is referred to as “instant real estate.”
(2) According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid D the down payment of KRW 24,00,000 among the deposit for lease on September 2, 2015, and KRW 221,00,000 among the remainder on October 28, 2015, respectively, and received the instant real estate from D, and completed the move-in report on the instant real estate on October 28, 2015.
3) D sold the instant real estate to the Defendant on September 2, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate on October 28, 2015. [The purport of the entirety of the arguments and arguments is as follows: (a) the fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition; (b) the entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport
B. According to the facts found above, the instant contract was terminated on October 27, 2017, and the expiration of the period of validity on October 27, 2017, and the Defendant succeeded to the obligation under the Housing Lease Protection Act with respect to the instant real estate under Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act as it is and thereby assumed the obligation to return the lease deposit. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 245,00,000, barring any special circumstance
Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought for the payment of damages for delay on the above lease deposit, but there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the Defendant. Therefore, the part claiming damages for delay is without merit.
2. The defendant's defense is defense that the defendant's obligation to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's obligation to return the real estate of this case to the defendant are in the simultaneous performance relationship. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation to return the lease deposit when the lease contract is terminated and the lessee's obligation to return the leased real estate is returned.