beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 80 million with the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from August 13, 2015 to October 6, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother D entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to three rooms on the 10th floor of the E-ground building owned by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother D (hereinafter “instant leased object”) with a deposit of KRW 150 million, down payment of KRW 13 million, and the lease period from February 25, 201 to February 24, 2013, with a view to setting the lease period from February 25, 201 to February 24, 2013.
B. On February 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report for resident registration with the “Council E and Ten stories” at his/her domicile, and obtained a fixed date in the instant lease agreement on the same day.
C. On July 13, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the leased object of the instant case on the ground of trust in the future, the trustee KF real estate trust corporation, etc., and the Plaintiff completed the registration of a housing lease on January 20, 2015, which was based on the order of lease registration on the leasehold of lease on the basis of the order of lease registration on January 20, 2015.
On July 8, 2015, the Defendants entered into a sales contract for an aggregate building (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”) composed of 69 sections, including the object of the instant lease, with the K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of each of the instant aggregate buildings on August 7, 2015, and the Plaintiff delivered the leased object to the Defendants on August 12, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is a lessee with the opposing power over the leased object of this case and sought the return of the lease deposit to the Defendants, the owner of the leased object of this case, and the Defendants did not actually pay the lease deposit, and thus, the said lease contract of this case is null and void as a false indication of conspiracy due to the lack of actual payment of the lease deposit.