2013da 15903 Return of lease deposit

A

Cheongsung C&D Co., Ltd.

August 23, 2013

September 6, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from March 14, 2012 to July 19, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff leased, respectively, at KRW 40 million, No. 301 and 302 of the instant building on January 27, 201, the lease deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000, the Daegu-gu building located in B (hereinafter “instant building”) from Lone Star Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tone Star”).

B. Around March 2012, the Plaintiff and Dup Star terminated each of the above lease agreements. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant building Nos. 113, 301, and 302 to Dup Star and was returned KRW 140 million out of the lease deposit.

C. As the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 140 million out of the lease deposit and the remainder of KRW 100 million, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Dud Star on August 17, 2012, claiming the refund of the remainder of KRW 100 million of the lease deposit with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 2012Da23744.

D. Meanwhile, on July 11, 2011, the Defendant registered the right to claim ownership transfer on the instant building 113, 301, and 302, but completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 1, 201.

[Reasons for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 3 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 100 million for the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, as the Defendant acquired the instant building from the drum, during the course of the lawsuit seeking the return of the lease deposit. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant building after the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the drum, and thus, did not have any obligation to return the lease deposit to

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed-term