beta
Text
1. Defendant B: 5% per annum from August 16, 2017 to March 16, 2018, and from the following day to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, which stipulates that the lease deposit amount of KRW 150 million for the building owned by the Plaintiff, KRW 9 million for the rent month, KRW 9 million for the rent month, and between July 23, 2014 and July 22, 2015 for the building owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”). Defendant B occupied the instant building upon delivery.
B. Around July 17, 2015, Defendant B attached to the first floor of the instant building after entering in Section A48 of the title “A48 stating that, in relation to the return of deposit upon the termination of the lease term, there is a dispute with the Plaintiff, the deposit which was not returned at least KRW 150,000 for the public interest should be immediately returned, and the deposit which was not returned at least KRW 150,000 for the public interest should be separately acquired during the six-year test period, which was provided without consultation, and then the amount equivalent to the deposit should be deducted from the deposit by voluntarily extending the lease term at the time of the termination of the lease term at the time of the termination of the lease term to the lessor, and the illegal act should be immediately pardoned.”
However, the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to pay management expenses and public charges during the period of interior works by Defendant B, the lessee, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff acquired management expenses or extended the lease period of six weeks to the Plaintiff at his own discretion during the period of interior works, thereby subtracting the amount equivalent to KRW 15 million from the deposit.
C. Accordingly, Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million due to the criminal fact that the Plaintiff’s reputation was damaged by openly alleging false facts (Seoul Central District Court 2016DaMa967). Defendant B’s appeal against the above judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2016No3895) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2017Do1689) were dismissed, respectively, and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive.
On the other hand, Defendant C, the mother of Defendant B, is a criminal case against Defendant B.