beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 110,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from August 8, 2018 to September 13, 2018 and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on March 25, 2014 with the lease deposit amount of KRW 90,00,000, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,00 with the lease deposit amount from May 31, 2014 to May 30, 2016, and paid the said lease deposit to the Defendant.
② On March 8, 2016, a lease deposit was increased to KRW 110,00,000, and a lease contract was concluded between May 31, 2016 and May 31, 2018, and paid KRW 20,000,00, which was increased to the Defendant.
B. On March 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intention to renew the lease agreement, and requested the Defendant to refund the lease deposit upon the expiration of the lease term.
C. On August 7, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred the instant house to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 to evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the allegations and the above-mentioned facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 110,000,000 won of lease deposit and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until September 13, 2018 when the copy of the complaint (payment order) of this case was delivered to the Defendant from August 8, 2018 after the Plaintiff delivered the instant house to the Defendant, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the day of full payment.
The defendant's assertion on this is interpreted to the effect that the lease contract between the plaintiff is implicitly renewed.
However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff notified the defendant of his refusal to renew the lease on or after March 2018, which constitutes one month prior to the expiration of the lease term. Therefore, the above defense is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.