beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 270,000,000 won to the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet from C, etc. with the lease deposit amount of KRW 270,00,000,000, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 270,000 from February 15, 2017 to February 14, 2018. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 270,00,000 to C, etc., upon delivery of the said real estate, completed the move-in report on February 16, 2016 and resided in the said real estate.
On the other hand, on June 21, 2017, the defendant succeeded to the status of a lessor pursuant to the above lease by completing the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate, and since the present lease contract has been terminated, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit stated in the claim to the plaintiff.
2. Judgment by public notice for recognition (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
3. The Plaintiff also claims for the payment of the lease deposit amount of KRW 270,000,000 to the Defendant.
However, the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object and the lessor’s obligation to return the leased deposit are both simultaneous performance relationships. In cases where both obligations are simultaneously performance relationships, even if one of the parties’ obligation becomes due, the obligor is not liable for the delay of performance even if the other party’s obligation is not fulfilled, and such effect does not necessarily lead to the exercise of the obligee’s right of defense of simultaneous performance. Thus, in cases where the obligor provides the other party’s obligation under a bilateral contract with simultaneous performance relationship, if it is necessary to perform the other party’s obligation, then the obligor may be forced to complete preparations for performance at any time and notify the other party of the intent to receive the deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764, Jul. 10, 201). The Plaintiff’s obligation to return the leased deposit is the Defendant’s obligation to return the deposit.