beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 7, 2018 to November 13, 2018; and (b) November 14, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million with respect to the branch-story D (hereinafter “instant house”) among the apartment houses for the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul ground reinforced concrete and the brick-to-house multi-household roof (7 households), and the term of lease from June 14, 2016 to June 13, 2018. The lease agreement was concluded between June 14, 2016 and June 13, 2018, and the down payment of KRW 5 million as of the same day, and the remainder of KRW 50 million as of June 14, 2016, to the Defendant.
B. On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff delivered the instant house to the Defendant on or after the expiration of the lease term, and around that time, the Defendant prepared a letter of intent to deposit the unpaid lease deposit in cash and delivered it to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 each 1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million unpaid lease deposit and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 7, 2018 to November 13, 2018, which is the day following the day on which the Plaintiff delivered the instant house, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.
In regard to this, the defendant argued that although he wanted to rent the house of this case but failed to request a new tenant to return the lease deposit, the above circumstance alone does not constitute a ground to block the plaintiff's claim.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.