beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 28, 2016 to March 28, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 4, 2010, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) a rental deposit of KRW 190,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 190,000 from the Defendant for the purpose of April 12, 2012, the Plaintiff paid a rental deposit to the Defendant and resided therein.
B. As for the Plaintiff’s spouse, the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2016 business group1059, “The claim for consolation money due to divorce” against the Plaintiff as the preserved bond, the provisional attachment order for the cited claim was served on July 25, 2016 on the Defendant by filing an application for provisional attachment against KRW 50,000,000 among the claims for refund of the deposit deposit of the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “the provisional attachment of this case”).
C. The instant lease agreement was renewed by April 12, 2016, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment on July 27, 2016 to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid only KRW 140,000,000 among the deposit deposit for the same day to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim and the Defendant’s assertion
A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000 which was not returned among the rental deposit under the instant lease agreement, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 28, 2016 to March 28, 2018, which is the day following the day when the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment, until March 28, 2018, which is the day when the original payment order was served.
B. The Defendant asserts that the provisional attachment of this case did not pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the deposit money under the lease contract of this case, and that the Plaintiff cannot claim payment of the above money, and that the lawsuit of this case was abused.
In this regard, the claims have been simply seized.