beta
Text
1. The defendant has received 84.68 square meters from the plaintiff among the real estate listed in the attached list from the plaintiff as well as 9.6 square meters from the plaintiff.
Reasons
In full view of the absence of dispute between the parties, evidence Nos. 1 and 1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on September 8, 2017, stipulating that the instant building shall be leased from October 24, 2017 to October 24, 2019, with the lease deposit of KRW 100 million, and the lease deposit of KRW 20 million from October 24, 2019, and the remainder of KRW 80 million shall be paid on the date of the contract (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on October 24, 2017, and the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 70 million to the Defendant on October 25, 2017.
According to the facts of recognition, the instant lease contract was terminated on October 24, 2019, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff upon restitution following the termination of the instant lease contract.
However, since the Plaintiff’s duty to deliver the instant building is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Defendant’s duty to return the lease deposit, the Defendant is obliged to return the Plaintiff KRW 90 million at the same time with the delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff.
On October 23, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that on October 23, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million out of the remainder amount of KRW 80 million under the instant lease agreement to the Defendant and paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million under the instant lease agreement.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant on October 23, 2017 only with the evidence from Gap 3 to 9, 11, 12, and 14 to 17 (including the paper number) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.
If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.