beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,209,390 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 16, 2015 to November 20, 2015, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of KRW 120,00,000 for the lease deposit, and the term of lease from October 1, 2013 to September 29, 2017 for the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
The plaintiff paid 120,000,000 won to the defendant around that time, and received the delivery of the apartment of this case.
B. Around February 2015, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant to leave the apartment of this case, and accepted this request, and on May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 100,000,000 as the name of return of deposit for lease from the Defendant and removed from the apartment of this case on the same day.
C. From October 1, 2013 to May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 269,390 won in total of the long-term repair appropriations imposed on the instant apartment from October 1 to May 15, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay 20,269,390 won (=20,000,000 won 269,390 won) and delay damages therefrom, which are the sum of the lease deposit and the long-term repair appropriations to be borne by the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
The defendant asserts that the above remaining lease deposit amount of KRW 10,00,000,000, which was already paid to 20,000,000, was extinguished due to repayment, and that the amount should be deducted since the plaintiff did not pay management fee of KRW 1,060,00 imposed on the apartment of this case during the lease period.
The plaintiff did not pay management expenses of KRW 1,060,00,000, and the fact that the plaintiff received KRW 10,000 from the defendant before leaving the apartment of this case is not a dispute between the parties, and in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is the representative of the defendant.