beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 75,00,000 as well as annual 5% from July 13, 2019 to July 24, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 75,00,000,000 with respect to the original C Apartment D, and the lease period of KRW 24 months from March 23, 2017 to March 22, 2019.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to substitute KRW 65,00,000 among the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement as the previous lease deposit, and the remainder KRW 10,000,000 paid to the Defendant on March 22, 2017 by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated on March 22, 2019, since the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intention not to renew the contract by telephone one month prior to the expiration of the instant lease agreement, and that the Defendant did not have been notified of the termination of the contract, and that the lease term was extended by March 22, 2021 upon implied renewal of the lease agreement.
B. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff notified the plaintiff that he had no intention to renew the contract one month prior to the expiration of the term of the instant lease. Thus, the lease shall be deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions as the former lease, and the term of the lease shall be deemed to be two years (Article 6(1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act).
However, in such a case, the lessee may notify the lessor of the termination of the contract at any time, notwithstanding the provision that the lessee shall be deemed to be two years, and the termination shall take effect at any time after the lapse of three months from the date when the lessor received the notification (Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act), and it is evident that the duplicate of the complaint of this case containing the intent to terminate the contract was served on the Defendant.