beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50,000,000, and the term of lease from March 27, 2017 to March 26, 2018 with respect to the Yongsan-gu E building F (hereinafter “instant building”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid all the above lease deposit to the Defendants.
B. On March 26, 2019, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to return the lease deposit for the reason that the term of the lease expires, and around that time, the Plaintiff returned KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendants. On June 1, 2020, the Plaintiff received the remainder of KRW 40,000,000 from the Defendants, and delivered the instant building to the Defendants.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay interest of KRW 1,012,603 calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from March 17, 2020 to May 31, 2020, which is the day before the refund of all the deposit for lease from March 17, 2020 when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendants. The plaintiff asserts that interest of KRW 1,012,603 and delay damages from June 2, 2020 to the day of full payment.
However, even if one of the parties' obligations is jointly performed, if the other party's obligation is due, the other party's obligation is not performed until the other party's obligation is performed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43370, Oct. 25, 2002). Thus, if the lease contract is terminated, it cannot be deemed that the lessee performed the obligation to deliver the building or performed the obligation, the lessor is liable for delay of performance as to the obligation to return the lease deposit in the simultaneous performance relationship with the obligation to deliver the building.
However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendants only at the same time as the Plaintiff returned the lease deposit from the Defendants.