beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 19, 2017 to March 27, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Claim for refund of deposit for lease;
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on March 10, 2015 with respect to No. 106 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu building 10,000 won for the lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 1890,000 for the lease deposit, and the period from March 10, 2015 to March 9, 2017, and paid the lease deposit to the Defendant at that time. The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a proof that he/she would not extend the contract on December 21, 2016, and the Defendant paid KRW 49 million to the Plaintiff on May 18, 2017.
B. Although the Plaintiff delivered the leased object to the Defendant on the same day after the termination of the contract on March 9, 2017, the Defendant paid 49 million won out of the leased object on May 18, 2017, and the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 1,472,602, and the remainder of the leased object appropriated for KRW 472,602 from March 10, 2017 to May 18, 2017, and the delay damages therefrom.
According to Eul evidence No. 2, although it is recognized that the plaintiff informed the defendant of the entrance password of the leased object on May 17, 2017, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff delivered the leased object to the defendant on March 9, 2017, only on the basis of the evidence No. 3, 4, and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff one million won and damages for delay from May 19, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is after delivering the leased object to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.
C. The defendant is obligated to pay the remaining lease deposit to the plaintiff without using the above trade name until the replacement of the external signboard, since the plaintiff's trade name is prohibited from being used and the above obligation and the obligation to return the lease deposit are concurrently performed.