beta
Text
At the same time, the defendant receives 40,000,000 won from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, the first floor of the building listed in the attached list is the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 2, 2010, the Plaintiffs leased the leased deposit amount of KRW 40,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the leased portion of KRW 9.174 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building portion”) in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawings among the first floor of the building listed in the attached list, to the Defendant as of March 31, 201, the lease period of KRW 40,00,000 (excluding value-added tax), from April 1, 201 to March 31, 2016.
B. On September 30, 2015, November 4, 2015, and March 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a certificate of the content that the instant building portion should be handed over on March 31, 2016 when the lease term expires, as there is no intention to extend the lease term to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the lease contract on the part of the building of this case concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendant has expired on March 31, 2016. As such, the defendant is obligated to receive lease deposit KRW 40,000,00 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time deliver the part of the building of this case to the plaintiffs. 2) Since the duty to return the leased object arising upon the termination of the lease contract and the duty to return the remainder of the deposit after deducting the lessee’s overdue rent from the lessor, etc. due to the lessor’s fulfillment of the duty to return the remainder of the lease deposit or the duty to provide the lessor with legitimate performance, the lessor cannot be deemed as an illegal possession even if the lessee continues to possess the object after the termination of the lease contract, and the lessee is not obligated to pay damages.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da6497, May 29, 1998; 2015Da32585, Oct. 29, 2015). In this case, according to the description of evidence A No. 1.