beta
Text
1. The defendant's claim against the plaintiff is a substitute for the conciliation of this court's case of return of lease deposit (No. 96096).
Reasons
1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and evidence Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings:
On October 3, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with respect to the value of 68,09 square meters of the first floor among the housing of 2nd floor in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by the Plaintiff, between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 82 million, the lease deposit of KRW 82 million from October 8, 201 to October 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Defendant paid and received all the lease deposit around that time.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, shall restore the real estate to its original state at the time of termination of the lease contract without changing its use or structure, and the instant housing area was designated as the renewal promotion area (e.g., May 24, 2010). Since the promotion committee for establishing an association was approved ( October 15, 2010), the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to order it even before the contract period if it becomes a project implementation.
B. On December 16, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for claiming the return of lease deposit with this court 2013da96096, as the Plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit even after the above lease term expires. On February 12, 2014, the court decided on February 12, 2014 that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 82 million with the name of the Defendant at the time of receiving the instant house from the Defendant,” and the above decision was the same year.
3.1. Finality:
(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation decision”). C.
Around April 24, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to use the instant house, and the Plaintiff paid only KRW 75 million to the Defendant on the 30th of the same month, and did not return the remainder of KRW 7 million. The Defendant around September 2014, based on the instant conciliation decision, paid KRW 7 million for the instant house.