beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,00,000 and the following day for the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from March 11, 2016 to June 16, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 24, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease KRW 202,00,000,000 for lease deposit (contract deposit KRW 157,000,000,000,000,000) among the five-story multi-family housing owned by the Defendant, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangjin-gu, and Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from October 27, 2015 to October 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 27 million to the Defendant as a deposit for lease, KRW 30 million on December 22, 2015, KRW 230 million on the same month, KRW 100 million on the 23th of the same month, and KRW 177 million on the 26th of the same month.
C. Around April 6, 200, the Plaintiff received continuous medical treatment after receiving the diagnosis of Cho Jong-dong disability, etc., and the Plaintiff was missing at the time of the remainder payment of the instant lease agreement, and was hospitalized in the National Public Hospital from November 5, 2015 to the date of the remainder.
On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant through C to refund the lease deposit paid after cancelling or cancelling the instant lease contract because the Plaintiff had concluded the instant lease contract due to mental disorder. Accordingly, the Defendant agreed to the effect that the Plaintiff would return the deposit upon entering the lease deposit upon entering the said lease house upon entering the lease contract with the new lessee.
E. After that, the Defendant leased the foregoing house to a new lessee on January 4, 2016, and deposited KRW 148,840,000,00, excluding penalty of KRW 27 million and brokerage fees, from KRW 177,700,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff as the principal deposit, as Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2016, Jan. 4, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 (including provisional number), Eul evidence No. 3, Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, upon the request of E who actually represented the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant in this case.