1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 24, 2019 to September 26, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant under which he/she leases the Yong-gu Seoul Building D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from January 31, 2017 to January 30, 2019, and KRW 24 million from January 31, 2017, and KRW 250,000,000 for the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the Defendant the said deposit amount to KRW 250,000.5 million.
B. On October 5, 2018, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to recover the lease deposit on the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, as the Plaintiff did not intend to renew the instant lease agreement through text messages.
C. After that, on March 14, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for the order of lease registration on March 25, 2019 and received the order of lease registration on March 25, 2019 (the same court No. 2019Kau2020), and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on March 23, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 25 million won, excluding the amount of KRW 25 million,00,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 25 million paid by the plaintiff among the lease deposit of this case 2.5 million, and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from March 24, 2019, which is the day following the day when the plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case to the defendant, until September 26, 2019, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, until September 26, 2019, and from the following day to the day of full payment.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.