beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from May 10, 2019 to October 10, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
On January 7, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on three floors (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, which are owned by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) with regard to deposit money for lease from February 11, 2017 to February 10, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,00,000 among the deposit money for lease on the same day, and KRW 68,00,000 among the deposit for lease on February 10, 2017, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant on or around March 25, 2019, barring any dispute between the parties, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above deposit money for lease, KRW 70,000,000,000, and delay damages from the date of delivery on which the instant building was delivered.
In regard to this, the defendant argues to the effect that "the contract of this case is implicitly renewed, and the contract of this case is not terminated on February 10, 2019, but has not yet arrived at the maturity of the plaintiff's right to return the lease deposit."
The written evidence Nos. 4 and 6 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the contract of this case one month prior to the expiration date of the lease term of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the contract of this case is deemed to have been renewed under the same condition pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.
However, according to the evidence No. 4, the plaintiff can at least recognize the fact that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the termination of the contract of this case on February 9, 2019. Thus, pursuant to Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the contract of this case is deemed to have been lawfully terminated and terminated on May 9, 2019, which was three months after the termination.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified within the above scope of recognition.
The defendant agreed to bear the water rate according to the contract of this case.