beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) handed over to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the real estate indicated in the separate sheet from February 14, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the main claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant on August 11, 2016, on the following grounds: (a) the deposit amount of KRW 50 million; (b) the monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million; (c) the first monthly rent from August 11, 2016 to August 11, 2018; (d) the first monthly rent was paid on October 30, 2016; and (e) the monthly rent was the monthly rent at the end of each month; and (e) the Defendant was not paid monthly rent after paying KRW 3.85 million to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2016; and (e) the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on at least two occasions on the grounds that the instant complaint was terminated on February 1, 2017.
B. According to the above facts, since the lease was terminated at the latest on February 13, 2017, the Plaintiff was obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and as a result, to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 3850,000 per month from February 14, 2017 to the delivery date of the instant real estate, as sought by the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim for the refund of deposit, since the lease was terminated on February 13, 2017 by the Plaintiff’s termination, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant with the deposit to its original state.
Although the Defendant also claims damages for delay, the Defendant’s obligation to return the Plaintiff’s deposit and the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate do not result in delay of the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the deposit, on the grounds that there is no evidence that the Defendant delivered the instant real estate due to simultaneous performance, or that the Plaintiff provided the delivery.