beta
Text
1. From February 8, 2019 to KRW 2,342,370, the Defendant shall deliver the two-story housing among the buildings listed in the attached Table from February 8, 2019 to KRW 85.14 square meters.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 3, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 900,000, and the lease term of KRW 240,000 from January 7, 2018 to January 6, 2020 with respect to the two-story housing (hereinafter “instant housing”).
B. On January 2018, when the Defendant moved into the instant house, the boiler pipes installed outside the instant house were not operated by ice boiler, and was managed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in such a way that the Plaintiff and the Defendant 100,000 won, melting the boiler pipes, and melting the hot water for the prevention of the same wave. However, approximately 10 days after the said 10 days, the boiler did not ice and did not ice heating, and the said fung was generated, which led to the occurrence of fung in the ceiling and the wall.
On February 10, 2018, the Defendant declared that the instant lease contract will be terminated, and the Plaintiff also accepted the Defendant’s intention of termination and decided to terminate the instant lease contract as of March 7, 2018.
C. Upon receiving a request from the Defendant to return KRW 10 million out of the instant lease deposit for the purpose of a housing lease contract for replacement for directors, the Plaintiff returned KRW 10 million to the Defendant on February 13, 2018, and the remainder of the lease deposit KRW 10 million to the Defendant on March 7, 2018, which the Defendant decided to be the director, after deducting all of the expenses related to the instant lease contract and paying it in repayment with the delivery of the instant house.
However, as of March 7, 2018, the defendant was scheduled to do so, but the defendant demanded the return of the deposit before the directors.
However, the plaintiff refused the defendant's prior demand for the payment of deposit, and due to this, the plaintiff's wife and mother's father and the defendant's wife.