beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from December 4, 2014 to April 15, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On January 5, 2012, the Defendant leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 210,00,000,000 from February 10, 2012 to February 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) to the Plaintiff, Daejeon Seosung-gu C apartment 11,104, 301 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and thereafter, received KRW 210,000,000 from the Plaintiff around that time.
On February 9, 2014, the Plaintiff terminated the lease term of this case and completed the lease registration on February 25, 2014 and moved out from the apartment of this case around that time.
【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the fact that the lease contract of this case terminated on February 9, 2014, the court below held that since the expiry of the contract term, the lease contract of this case terminated on February 9, 2014, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, a lessee, 210 million won, and damages for delay calculated on December 4, 2014, which is the day following the day when the plaintiff delivered the apartment of this case to the defendant after the day when the plaintiff delivered the original copy of the payment order of this case. (According to Eul evidence No. 1, at least, it is recognized that the plaintiff delivered the apartment of this case to the defendant on December 3, 2014, at least the day when the plaintiff notified the defendant of the password number of the correction device of the apartment of this case) by December 3, 2014.
The Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 26, 2014 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the above lease deposit. However, the Defendant’s obligation to return the above deposit is concurrently performing the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the apartment of this case, and