beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 6, 2003, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the Plaintiff on a lease deposit of KRW 20 million and KRW 20 million from March 7, 2003 on a lease deposit with the term of 24 months with respect to the 123.16 square meters of the 3rd floor among the 3rd floor buildings located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon. At that time, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 20 million.
B. After that, the Daejeon District Court D for the above building, the auction of real estate was conducted, and the non-party E was awarded the above building on July 6, 2004, and on July 13, 2004, the Daejeon District Court issued an order for delivery of real estate by the Daejeon District Court 2004Kag1803, and completed the delivery execution against the defendant around that time.
On the other hand, the defendant did not receive any distribution at all in the above auction procedure.
C. The defendant filed a claim against the plaintiff for the payment of the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million and damages for delay. On December 13, 2005, the above court ordered the defendant (the plaintiff in the above case) to pay the amount of KRW 20 million with interest of KRW 20 million per annum from the day following the service date of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment. The above payment order was served on the plaintiff on December 30, 2005 and became final and conclusive on January 14, 2006.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant the above lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 31, 2005 to the day of full payment after the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, as requested by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above lease deposit to the defendant.