beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s motion to return deposit No. 2014Gadan4049 against the Plaintiff is enforceable.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 15, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, which stipulated as the lease deposit amount of KRW 90,000,000, and the term of lease from July 8, 2012 to July 8, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant delivered the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff returned KRW 50,000,000 out of the lease deposit to the Defendant on October 1, 2014.
C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of KRW 40,00,000 for the unpaid lease deposit with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Da4049 and damages for delay from September 3, 2014 to the date of full payment. On December 26, 2014, the Defendant returned KRW 37,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s lease deposit to the date of full payment, and subsequently deducted the claim for reimbursement in sequence with the interest and principal. On February 3, 2015, the said court rendered a final and conclusive judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,630,136 and its interest at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from the following day to January 7, 2015, and that at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”).
On March 18, 2015, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) against the instant apartment as Daejeon District Court D on March 18, 2015, with only the remainder of KRW 1,830,136, which deducted the rent of KRW 1,80,000, which was unpaid to the Plaintiff, as the claim for damages for delay.
E. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the above amount to the Defendant by deducting the unpaid rent, etc. from the judgment amount on March 18, 2015, when the Defendant applied for the compulsory auction of this case. However, the Defendant cannot agree to the above account, and the Defendant did not withdraw the application for the compulsory auction of this case. Ultimately, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 1,424,110 to the Defendant on April 2, 2015.
F. The defendant