beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution against 2016 Chicago10135, Sep. 2016
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 75 million with the third floor of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dance Resolution No. 301 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) from August 10, 2013 to August 10, 2015, the lease term of which was set from August 10, 2013 to August 10, 2015.
(A) Evidence No. 1, hereinafter referred to as “instant lease contract”). B.
With respect to the payment of KRW 75 million for the above lease deposit, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6 million to the Defendant on the date of entering into the instant lease contract, and received a loan of KRW 59 million from the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. to the Defendant’s bank account on August 9, 2013, and transferred it to the Defendant’s bank account on behalf of the Plaintiff via E through a licensed real estate agent who arranged the instant lease contract. On August 10, 2013, on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million (F’s lease deposit was KRW 70 million, but KRW 60 million was paid by the Defendant and KRW 75 million remains) to the former lessee of the instant building.
C. After the term of the instant lease expires, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant on August 28, 2015, but the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75 million in the remainder of the lease deposit with the remainder of KRW 5 million.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), Gap's witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5 million in balance of the lease deposit and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 19, 2015 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, from December 19, 2015, the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and therefore the defendant's appeal