beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 19,974,402 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from July 26, 2013 to July 7, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to KRW 50,000,000 ( KRW 20,000,000 at the time of the contract, the remainder of KRW 30,000,000 at the time of payment, April 2, 2012), monthly rent 2,00,000,000 at the end of April 2, 2012, and period from April 2, 2012 to April 2, 2014.
B. On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant according to the instant lease agreement, and was notified by the Busan District Real Estate Agent Office (E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office), a real estate brokerage office, established and operated with D, along with D, the office of this case. The Plaintiff was unable to open a real estate brokerage office in the first floor sales facility of the Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “cooperative”) pursuant to the first floor district unit plan of the F Zone No. 1.
C. On August 25, 2012, the Plaintiff moved out of the instant office, and opened a mutually same real estate brokerage office in another office.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the whole purport of pleading
2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, upon receiving the notice of non-establishment of the real estate brokerage office from the Plaintiff’s association, leaves the instant office at the request of the Defendant to leave, and the instant lease contract was concluded on August 25, 2012. As such, the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserts that the amount to be returned to the Plaintiff is the amount of the lease deposit and the damages for delay deposited by the Defendant, and the amount of the deposit and the damages for delay paid by the Defendant, and the amount equivalent to the remainder of the repayment and the damages for delay paid by the Defendant. 2) The Defendant unilaterally concluded that the Plaintiff is unable to hold the real estate brokerage office on the first