beta
Text
1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On December 23, 1997, the Plaintiff’s husband deceased C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant’s mother D on the apartment of this case with the KRW 15 million. On January 3, 2005, the lessee changed the lessee to the Defendant.
C decided to terminate the instant lease agreement with the Defendant on July 16, 2013, and on July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment due to the donation on the same day, and died around 2014.
C was subrogated for the obligation of D on May 25, 2012, and the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 822,631, which remains after deducting the amount of subrogated, unpaid management expenses, electricity tax, etc. from the lease deposit of KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff.
B. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's husband Byung concluded a lease agreement on the apartment of this case with D on December 23, 1997, the defendant succeeded to the tenant status of the above lease agreement on December 23, 2001, the deceased C terminated the lease agreement of this case with the defendant on July 16, 201, and the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the apartment of this case on July 24, 2013.
Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and records as stated in the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 6, the defendant removed the apartment of this case from the apartment of this case and returned the key of the apartment of this case to the plaintiff around April 14, 2015. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff had already been delivered the apartment of this case from the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.
The plaintiff sought the delivery of the apartment of this case at the same time as the refund of the deposit balance, but since the plaintiff's request for delivery of the apartment of this case has no reason, the amount of the deposit to be refunded.