logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.22 2015가단5234780
임대차보증금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay KRW 150,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 18, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the lease of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C 1020 (hereinafter “instant building”) under the terms of 12 months from March 30, 2011 to March 29, 201, the lease deposit of KRW 150,000,000, and paid the Defendant KRW 150,000 to the occupancy of the instant building.

B. Since then, the lease agreement on the instant building was extended to March 29, 2015 by oral or implied renewal. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the deposit will be returned upon termination of the lease agreement. The Plaintiff is occupying the instant building until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lease contract for the instant building was terminated upon the expiration of the period of validity.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 150,000,000 won to the plaintiff as the restoration following the termination of the lease contract.

Furthermore, the plaintiff also claims for the payment of damages for delay against the above deposit. However, even if one party's obligations are simultaneously performed in a bilateral contract, if the other party's obligations are due, the other party's obligations are not met until the other party's obligations are performed, and such effect does not necessarily lead to the exercise of the right of defense for simultaneous performance (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54604 delivered on March 13, 1998). Thus, in this case where the defendant's obligation to return deposit and the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the building of this case are concurrently performed, unless there is any evidence that the plaintiff did not deliver the building of this case and provided the other party with the obligation to deliver the building of this case, the part of the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay shall be made.

arrow