beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 190,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 18, 2017 to August 30, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with D, the mother of the Defendants, and multi-household 103 of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Multi-household 103 (hereinafter “instant housing”) by setting the lease deposit of KRW 190 million and the lease period from October 13, 2014 to October 12, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. The Plaintiff paid the above deposit of KRW 190 million to the above D, and used the instant house upon delivery.
C. Around August 2016, the Plaintiff, among the Defendants, who inherited the instant housing and completed the registration of transfer due to the death of D ( February 7, 2016) and had no intent to extend the instant lease agreement, sent a certificate to the effect that the Defendant B would return the deposit at the expiration of the period and deliver it. The foregoing certificate reached around that time.
On the other hand, a lease agreement with F was concluded with respect to the instant housing, and the said F was handed over on February 17, 2017.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts found above, since the instant lease contract was terminated at the expiration of the term, the Defendants, who inherit the instant house due to D’s death, are jointly obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from February 18, 2017 to August 30, 2017, on the following day after the Plaintiff was delivered the instant house to the Plaintiff as the lessee, and from February 18, 2017 to August 30, 2017, the date following the date when the Plaintiff was delivered the instant house.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.