Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Ba-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Chang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 12, 2014

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Ra207288 Decided February 6, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,164,00 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 13,164,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the following: (a) the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion presented during the period from No. 3 to No. 4, No. 3, 15, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, it is identical to the written judgment of the court of first instance.

【In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff opposed to the Plaintiff’s moving-in of the leased object of this case on August 8, 2012; (b) the Plaintiff waived the moving-in of the leased object of this case; (c) the Plaintiff moved-in of the leased object of this case from Nonparty 1 on the lease date of Sungnam-gu ( Address 1 omitted); and (d) the Defendant did not require the Plaintiff to pay the deposit for the lease of this case on August 30, 2012, and notified the Plaintiff of the rescission of the lease of the lease of this case on August 8, 2012 without requiring the Plaintiff to pay the deposit for the lease of this case.

However, as to the cause for cancellation of the lease of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff prepared the remainder on August 8, 2012 when he had not been released from the payment date of the remainder, but failed to perform the obligation to provide the leased object while refusing to receive the remainder. However, each of the entries of Nos. 6, 8, and 9 and the testimony of Non-Party 2 and 3 of the trial witness Non-Party 2 and the trial witness cannot be recognized solely (in light of the contents of each evidence mentioned above, only KRW 390,000 out of the remainder 468,000,000 as of August 8, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared for the check, and the remainder was transferred from the account of Non-Party 4, who entered into a company share transfer contract with the Plaintiff’s husband, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff failed to perform the obligation to pay the remainder, which is the leased object of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not have any other obligation to pay the remainder.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ansan-ro (Presiding Judge)